What’s the point, really? There are lots of reasons to oppose the US occupation without throwing in terms like ‘mass murder’ or ‘genocide’. Do you expect that someone here not currently in opposition to the war is is suddenly going to say, “Oh yeah, Diogenes, so well known here for his even temper and lack of hyperbole, sez the US is committting mass murder in Iraq. That changes everything!”
Call it what you want, really, but since very few people are likely to agree with your terminology, you’re probably going to want to save a copy of your personal definition of the term to paste into your posts, to help explain why you’re being (IMO) so pointlessly inflammatory.
So, I guess of someone makes the discussion more inflammatory through the use of, say, a logical fallacy (quite common here), or if they inflame the discussion by presenting factual evidence that irritates someone’s sensibilities, that’s cause for getting yelled at too?
I guess the new rule here is:
"There’s NOTHING funny about misspelling!".
Lighten up. **Dio ** can be irritating, but this threat is over the top.
There’s nothing in Finnagain’s definition that you can’t believe. Is he stating that you’re not allowed to believe that genocide is the goal until it actually occurs?
I totally disagree with you and still think you’re somewhat of a dickhead, but I can’t help but state that your words while overboard in nature cannot be allowed and I’m surprised that you can be accused of trolling for not backing off.
Nice to see you’re working with us here, Diogenes. Your spirit of cooperation has been duly noted.
Since you seem to require very simple explanations, I’ll give you one. No, we will NOT supply you or anyone else with a tidy list of verboten words and phrases. We aren’t gonna babysit adults. See, the point is to evaluate–sorry, weigh–even rants for something approximating–oops! did it again–close to–a reasonable, responsible point of view.
Unless, of course, you think the one who shouts the loudest, most shocking thing wins somehow. What on earth you think it could possibly win escapes me. Certainly not credibility, much less respect.
Simple enough for you yet? Grown-ups…have control over themselves! Exciting idea, isn’t it? People who don’t control themselves…get into trouble! Boo! Hiss!
I think that it is indeed less of a stretch than calling it “protecting our country”. I still do not see Dio’s point: two lies don’t make a truth.
I don’t recall if I’ve argues this on the SDMB before, but despite the fact I am proactive in my foreign policy stance, I would heartily argue against calling this defending our country, or our freedom, or even call it “defense” at all.
Oh, for fuck’s sake FinnAgain, I was saying that if Dio believes that the goal of the military is genocide, your definition supports his statement. Didja read the part where I said I disagreed with him?
So, Dickhead’s like DIO aren’t allowed to express an opinion? They have to have iffefutable proof?
That “O” on the end of IMHO seems to be screaming something at us.
I don’t think DtC got a warning for saying that US troops were engaged in genocide, but rather for saying that he was going to continue to use the phrase just to piss off FinnAgain. That is trolling.
If someone got a warning every time they said something crazy and inflammatory, half the board would have been banned ages ago.
Diogenes, I’ve noted in the last few months that your posts are gradually becoming more mean-spirited. Instead of frankly and openly stating your views with a sense of reasonableness, you’ve become more vicious, more of a name caller, and more, well, mean-spirited. You’re turning from someone I respect to someone I’m ashamed of. I’d like it if you returned to the way you used to be.
Pardon me if I misread your post, I was a bit confused by your pronouns at the beginning.
But what in my definition of genocide has anything in common with what’s going on in Iraq?
In my opinion users on the SDMB should refrain from making inflamatory remarks without justification, yes. And I freakin’ hate it when people rely on something being an ‘opinion’. I don’t know why people say that, or what they think it means exactly. Your opinion on whether coke is better than pepsi is irrelevent. Your opinion that US troops are commiting genocide is either a grave charge to be backed up with facts, or unfounded idiocy.
Um, yes, that I’m not trying to speak as a mod or engage in junior-modding .
Forgive me for belaboring this, but my belief that the war in Iraq amounts to mass murder is a fervent and sincere one. I am not trying to be shocking or irresponsible. It’s what I really think.
Calling the US actions on Iraq a genocide is a disservice to the memory of the many genocide victims in the past and the present.
I´m as opposed to the war as you, but I prefer to lay my terms on rational bases, which unfortunately are wide enough to support the stance. To be honest your rant sounded a bit histerical, I can comprehend that, you feel like pulling your hairs off when you see your country taking the road to hell with a smug, smilling face; but try to keep your fight to set things right civil. In a fight the winner is not nesesarily the stronger opponent, but the one who keeps a cool and centered mind.
In some ways I agree with **Dio ** here. First off, Bush is clearly a mass murderer. And in terms of genocide, not so sure, but I don’t doubt that he just assume destroy every muslim on the planet in the name of his delusional god. And another thing, you guys somehow assume that genocide is worse than mass murder. How so? Killing thousands of random people is somehow better than one particular group? Mass murder or genocide, either way he’s a complete piece of shit that should be in jail or dead. Note, I’m not wishing death of him, just saying that based on our laws, life in prison or the death penalty are both justified punishments.
No, it is not. Murder (in my mind, not the legal definition, perhaps) requires intent to kill. I don’t believe that the US went into Iraq with the intent to kill thousand upon thousands of innocent people. Those people are dead because of incompetence, poor training and preparation, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. I would support calling it mass-man-slaughter.
They went in there a.) without legal cause and b.) with the knowledge that their actions would have a high probability in causing a large number of civilian deaths.
I don’t know. I mean, I’m sure we didn’t go in with the intent of killing thousands of innocent people, but I’m pretty sure they went in with the knowledge that it would be a result of the invasion - I sure as hell knew it would be, and I’m no military strategist (I did serve in the military, FTR). Maybe this is splitting hairs, but let’s not be disingenuous about what the U.S. could reasonably expect to be the consequence of this war.
This is sort of what I was thinking when I read this thread. The question arises - seriously - how much of a civilian population has to be indiscriminately bombed, maimed and slaughtered before the word ‘genocide’ is applicable? Or does the word genocide only apply after the whole population is wiped out?
I don’t think it is an end result only - with no beginning or stages in between - perhaps DtC should have used the term ‘partial genocide’ - would that have been more acceptable to the OP writer?
Nope, it would not.
Notice from the definition I posted “The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.”