From page 3 of my second link:
Note the words “… and what some have characterized as …”
How about this one, from here:
Ah, but they say “tantamount to”. Hmm, I’ve have to try harder.
From here:
Getting closer.
Oh, hang on. Both my original cites used the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ a lot, didn’t they?
Fuck it, I’ll play me trump card: UN General Assembly resolution 47/121 of 18 December 1992.
Quick! Let’s go Googling, Batman!
How is a resolution about Bosnia-Herzegovina relevant to Kosovo?
Because it states that ‘ethnic cleansing’ is a form of genocide.
Are we having fun or what?
It states that the “ethnic cleansing” (their quotes) which took place in Bosnia was tantamount to genocide. It does not follow that any case of ‘ethnic cleansing’ (my quotes) should automatically be considered genocidal.
Goldhagen is indeed a man with an agenda. But if you read the book I think you would find its points were solidly argued. Goldhagen is no Michael Moore.
That resolution doesn’t say ‘tantamount to’ at all. Or is your saying ‘tantamount to’ allowed while an actual quote saying ‘characterized as’ isn’t?
Anyway, for the benefit of anyone unfortunate to be observing this masterclass in pedantry, the relevant part of resolution 47/121 in full*:
Now, I say that calls ethnic cleansing a form of genocide. You say just the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
Who knows which of us is right? I don’t. Mainly because I’m losing the will to live.
*See? Not one ‘tantamount to’.
But we weren’t talking about Bosnia!! I don’t question that genocide took place there - and nor does the Hague. We were talking about post-war Kosovo.
You just don’t get it, The resolution sets a precedent: It states that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. It doesn’t say ethnic cleansing in Bosina, just ethnic cleansing. Learn to read.
As I recall, the stuff the Serbs got up to in Kosovo was also labled as genocide in the build up to the war. But when ethnic Albanians do the same shit the Serbs did, the politicians keep fucking silent.
Also, you didn’t ask for me to provide you cites that called it genocide, you asked that I cite things from that handy genocide checklist being done with intent - Kosovo post war is that damn cite. If it’s not good enough for you, tough.
And I don’t give a shit what the fucking Hague calls it, seeing as the international community stood around and watched it fucking happen, did little to help the refugees* and were generally about as useful as a soluble lifebelt.
*They’ve now shut refugee camps: Stopped providing food, turned off the water and electricity, told the refugees to fuck off.
GorillaMan
Although I suppose you could ‘ethnicly cleanse’ a region through deportation, I think unless they specify that that’s the case, it’s probably pretty safe to assume in situations like this that they do mean “‘genocide’ of a particular group in a particular area”.
The resolution uses the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ with quotation marks. So it’s deliberatley avoiding a direct comparison with all policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And in any case, I’m still waiting for evidence that the present Kosovan situation compares to that described in Bosnia.
Interesting. " I’m still waiting for evidence that the present Kosovan situation compares to that described in Bosnia." seems to imply that you’d asked me to provide that evidence.
The first question you asked in this thread (which was much better than the helpful rolleyes smiley in your first post, your mother must be proud), in response to my statement that things on the genocide checklist are happening to Roma today, was that I cite that they were happening with intent.
Now intent is hard to prove, but the most obvious example is Kosovo, which I cite. You question this, so I clarify that it is post UN intervention and give you a couple of cites with background information.
That’s it. Job done. Question asked and answered.
But no, it seems these cites are worthless because they don’t call it genocide - “what some have characterized as genocide” isn’t close enough. I never knew that I had to provide cites that did refer to it as genocide, but there you go.
Being a kind and giving fellow, I do provide a couple more cites, ones that state “this is tantamount to a cultural genocide” and “the results only point to a policy of genocide---- genocide of the Roma and Hashkaija today in Kosovo.” I also make mention of a UN resolution that states that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide.
My first two cites are soundly ignored, and the UN resolution is worthless because it just refers to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
Once again, the original question of yours has been answered. That the answer is unsatisfactory to you saddens me so much that I’ve been crying for the last few hours, but I’ll get over it eventually.
One final thing to mention to you is that I really hope you’ve got an interesting book with you, because you’re gonna have a hell of a wait before I respond to any more questions of yours, even longer when you don’t bother asking one in the first place or change them mid-answer.
Back on topic:
Cecil really fucked up with this column, didn’t he? They should sack him and get someone else to do 'em. I think that Zotti fella would be good.
A couple of dubious cites and a misreading of a UN resolution is not proof.
Oh, and here’s a trustworthy cite.
Good lad, you didn’t roll your eyes. I’ve always thought eyerolling should be restricted to those either having an orgasm or a fit.
On preview: Good cite. Got nothing to do with the post war situation in Kosova, doesn’t mention Roma at all and concerns itself with Serb actions against Albanians during the war. But you can’t have everything.
How about a brand spanking new press release from the ERRC, as recieved in my email inbox not 10 minutes ago? Of course, ERRC stands for European Roma Rights Center, so you may find it somewhat “dubious”.
I think that answers quite nicely your original question and what’s more, the methods of ethnic cleansing which is called a form of genocide in the UN resolution for Bosnia:
Compares quite well with the methods used in Kosovo:
Admittedly, it doesn’t use the word genocide and there are no concentration camps - or gas chambers - but close enough to be comparable and more than enough evidence to answer your original question.
As an aside, did you know that there are respectable historians who argue that the Nazi atrocities against the Roma and Sinti were not genocide? And that Germany itself argued the same, before finally admitting it in the 1980’s? I’ve always thought that interesting.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to do something more fun than replying to you.
Hmm, I know where my foreskin is, but where did I put that chainsaw…
“Nonetheless, 11 million souls were lost to the Nazi Holocaust. Every
single one of them was equally your brother. To separate them–to
classify them–is to engage in the very tribalistic thinking that allows
such atrocities to occur in the first place.”
Wow.
I’m sorry for anybody who’s reading this post, because it means you also endured reading the, at best, misguided* exchange preceeding it.
Tell ya what folks, lets make a decision for humanity right now.
How big, and how heterogenus does the stack of human bodies have to be to get into the “genocide club”?
Cause that’s what you’re argueing over here. F**king childish.
ANY time ANY group large or small decides to rid ANY other group they don’t like for WHATEVER REASON off ANY area large or small by KILLING THEM that’s enough for ME to call it genocide.
Now argue that point.
Argue it and feel really SMALL as you sit comfortably in front of your thermonuclear-protected and powered computer eating a snickers bar.
Or eating anything at all for that matter, because right now somebody, somewhere is LITERALLY dying of starvation because of their ethnicity or religion, but that person is NOT YOU.
The death of 6 million, or 4, or 11, or WHO FUCKING CARES # of Jews in Nazi death camps is an epic human tradgedy NO MATTER WHAT.
Any attempt to exterminate Gypsies, Homosexuals, Myans, Bosnians, Mong, Palistinians or ANYBODY ELSE YOU GOT in ANY NUMBER for ANY REASON is EQUALLY TRAGIC.
Evil, loss, and horror are NOT BASED ON A MATHMATIC FORMULA.
Subjecting the genocide* of ANY group to minimising scrutiny is AN AFFRONT TO ALL VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE, EVERY WHERE, THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
While we’re all wrapped up in this mindless game, we’re forgetting the whole meaning of “NEVER FORGET”.
The unstated sentence is NOT “Never forget how badly the Jews, and Jews only got screwed by Europe.”
It IS “Never forget, lest this happen again, possibly to you.”
Oh, and just one more thought.
No websites for you (you’ll have to “work” for your info on my posts), but I’ve just looked up 3 to 5 corroborating site on this one. I welcome more exact info if available.
So here’s the question.
How many dead were there in WW2, total?
Civilians, Soldiers, Holocaust, all of em’.
Any idea? Didn’t think so.
“6 million” keeps jumping out at cha, but that’s all you got, right?
Try 60 million. Conservative.
Sites I found list most western nations, and all major combatants, but most of S.E. asia, for example, isn’t on the list, and from what little history I know of the Japanese railroads, there were tens of thousands of uncounted, unknown “tribal” people put to work and slaughtered there.
So, in an honest attempt at fairness, we’ll say 70 million.
Now, to me, when a whole bunch of Japanese guys with guns line up on the opposite side of a field from a whole bunch of American guys with guns, and they both keep running and shooting till they’re dead or everybody in front of them is, and they do all this because “we’re right, they’re wrong” or “we’re good, they’re bad” I have a tendency to stop seeing the line where genocide stops an “honest war” begins.
Look up the firebombing of Tokyo, or just watch that documentary/interview with Robert McNamara that just came out (at Blockbuster).
So how about we say there were 70 MILLION Holocaust victims, call it a day,
AND NOT FUCKING FORGET, LEST IT HAPPEN AGAIN, TO US.
thewooz@hotmail.com
*kindest word I could think of
*no need to cite a site here, just scroll up
‘Died in WW2’ is not the same thing as ‘Died in the Holocaust’. To say that the guys on Omaha beach, the U-Boat crews, the 70k in Hiroshima were all part of the genocide demeans and belittles the actual genocide.
Only if you believe one human life can ever be inherently worth more than another.
There is nothing demeaning to any of the WW2 dead about seeing the whole botched mess as one great human tradgedy, and seeing them all as victims of human hatred, greed, and stupidity.
The line you draw to separate the Nazi death-camp victims from the rest of humanity so as to in some perverse way glorify their suffering is the same line Hitler drew to put them there.
He was just on the opposite side of that line.
The premise of “genocide” as you, Gorillaman, argued so futilly for so long, is that there is, in FACT, something real, important, and tangible that SEPERATES the killers and the killed.
It’s the killer’s lie. It’s their sole semi-logical reason for their action.
Supporting it to honor their victims seems exceedingly perverse.
Jews are not “dirty scum of the earth” as a Nazi might put it. They are not “genetically inferior”. They are not even genetically seperated. We are one species, one race, and that which we divide ourselves with is of our own creation or perception.
We could get into religion at this point, and Jews being “god’s chosen people” may come up in the course of that discussion, but I think we both know that’s equally divisive and a red herring.
The point here is that we, HUMANITY AS A WHOLE, are RESPONSIBLE, and at the same times VICTIMS of WW2, in all it’s horror. A pissing contest on who the biggest victim is is fruitless, and juvenile.
We, as a whole, need to learn THAT lesson, lest we repeat the mistake.
I don’t see a Tokyo fire-boming victim, a Battaan Death March victim, a Holocaust victim, or one of the 16 million Soviet CIVILIAN dead as any less wrongly, horrible murdered. The only way to even attempt to differentiate them is to enter into the subjective debate on the worst way to go, or what “dying with dignity” is. And carrying the debate to that point would make the arguement about the arguer’s ego only.
And as for “combatantants”, aside from the compelling, and obvious, arguements about conscription, or impressionable young minds and the media machine, maybe we should examine, say, the average Nazi death-camp workers view of their “Kike” victim, versus the average U.S. G.I.'s view of the “Nip” on the other end of their barrel BEFORE either of them were actually in that situation, while they were volunteering. Is either’s intention any more or less genocidal? Isn’t the only difference who ended up in charge of them, and which country they call home?
Ask a vet. Ask one who’s made a pilgramage to visit their former enemy’s homeland, met somebody they would have been shooting at.
In their years if hard-earned wiseness, they’ll tell you, they were all victims in the end.
Not to use the flavor of the month, but Abu-Grabe should teach us that humanity’s habitual over-estimation of their own national moral rectitude has done nothing but repeatedly disappoint. War is hell, and hell is something I wish on nobody. There is no “right” war, there is no “fair” war, there are no “rules” in war, and sometimes in war the best of people with the best of intentions are forced or choose to do the worst of things.
We are human, we screw up, and it would be best if we stopped doing it on such a scale that it involves the deaths of millions.
And, in the midst of so much suffering, to exhault the pain of holocaust victims over that of all others as seperate, unique, or greater is to no only diminish the greater part of that suffering (the other 60-odd-millions) but also to remove it from the tragic context which allowed it to happen, and lead straight down the road to repeating such a mistake again.
thewooz
Am I being covertly accused of anti-semitism in that post?
Creating your own definition of genocide and of holocaust makes your argument unlosable. :rolleyes: