Quote:
Originally posted by LessinSF
I can say that you are wrong within the construct of your own moral code.
Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." In order to achieve your goals, what difference does it make if we kill 240MM across a wide cross-section of groups or if we wipe certain groups entirely out, like, say, anti-democratic theocratic groups like Wahabbis? Where does this idea that its somehow worse to kill all of an Amazon tribe than just some of an Amazon tribe come from? If Saddam were killing fewer Kurds but a lot more Shia, would you have felt less justified to invade?
|
You are leaving out intent. And you are a lawyer. In other words any mass killling of people is considered the same as Genocide? That is not true. Genocide is the intentional killing of an entire racial or ethnic group just because they are that ethnic or racial group. Like with murder, manslaughter or non criminal homicide, intent is a factor. When we invade a country to get rid of the dictator our intent is not to kill lots of people, our intent is to get rid of the dictator.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by LessinSF As an aside, I was surprised to see political and cultural groups included in the definition. The Nazis were a political group. Al Queda is both a political and cultural group, yet we are doing our damnedest to exterminate them. I guess, by definition, the U.S. is engaged in genocide.
|
I don't remember calling the systematic elimination of a political group as Genoide. If I did I was wrong. But again, the systematic elilmination of a political group, just because they are that political group is wrong. Unless of course, everyone by joining that political group, has committed themselves to killing every westerner they can. Then I don't see a problem with wiping out that political group.
