There's no mention of jews involved in China Syria or darfur so why would Franky care?
The long struggle over the meaning of "genocide"
- Thread starter Valcazar
- Start date
I'm not laughing along with genocide.
I'm laughing at your clear problems with reading comprehension and with your wild misunderstanding of my position.
(The particular way you try and take potshots also amuses me, as long as we are listing things.)
You rejected the relevant part of the conversation out of the gate, Frank.
I'm sorry that you get upset when it is pointed out to you that you are being silly and irrelevant when you are, but that's life.
And you wonder why I am not even bothering to engage with you when you're throwing shit like this out?
Are you now declaring that you think the upcoming genocide charges should cover the more 'broad' terms Lemkin wanted?
That Israel should have more charges of genocide and that you want to include Hamas too?
A position you have not articulated here.
You really haven't made your position here clear.
All you did was say what the article suggested Lemkin wanted.
If I didn't know better, I'd be inclined to form the impression that you don't take Geno's posts here terribly seriously.
Oh, this should be fun.
Yup! I was right.
That was fun.
It gets funnier and funnier.
Jesus it is a comedy routine now.
You already decided what my position is, Frank, and attacked me for the position you made up in your head.
Then doubled down on that repeatedly.
Maybe my position is "people should know something about the history of the term and the long-standing split between the legal use of the term and its use outside of that forum"?
Wait, are you declaring now what my position is in the same manner?
Your original post talked about the legal definition of genocide being too stringent and too hard to fulfill.
Since that post you haven't discussed the definition at all.
Sure, the conversation got derailed but you've also just repeatedly declared that I'm not getting 'the point' without stating what you think that point was.
So please, tell me what you think is wrong about the present definition, why it should changed, how it should be changed and then what other genocides you think would fit this broader definition.
We are 4 pages into this discussion.
Maybe its time to make your position clear.
I'm listening.
My original post linked the article and explained that it was "Essentially an argument that guy who invented the concept (Raphael Lemkin) wanted a broader interpretation than the one international courts have used since its codification in international law."
You then immediately accused me being "busy trying to find ways to say backing genocide is ok".
So yeah, I stand by my characterization of what happened.
And you're not going to discuss the specifics of why you agree or disagree that the definition should be more broad?
So my central premise was correct all along.
This wasn't a thread started for an honest discussion.
It was.
You derailed it.
And proved, yet again, in this post, why it isn't worth having such a discussion as long as you're here.
Well, I guess we'll never hear you argue why broadening the terms of genocide, which already puts Biden and the leaders of the UK, Germany and Canada at risk of charges, would be a good thing.
You were of course going to argue how this will effect Harris and her campaign, I expect.
Growing concern UK officials could be prosecuted over Israel arms sales
There are growing concerns that the UK Government, and even individuals working for it, could be held personally liable
inews.co.uk
Utter bullshit. Especially telling since you've repeatedly argued that Jews in the West bank can be assumed to be terrorists.
Of course you need to pull crap like that since you refuse to admit Hamas is a terror group.
Currently listed entities
Introduction to the terms of reference and listing of terrorist entities according to Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act
Yet you continue to reject all your groups demanding Hamas "immediately and unconditionally" release their hostages.
And add in your past claims that unguided Palestinian rockets are legitimate self defense despite what all your groups say. Add in your claims that simply being a Jew in the West Bank makes one a legitimate target despite all your groups saying otherwise. And as shack pointed out, you still reject HRW's report about Hamas' war crimes and the UN reports condemning Iran's crimes against humanity and genocide of minorities.
Ah, the shifting goalposts of a committed zealot.
Here's what you said:
The last three legally recognized genocides were Rwanda Darfur, and Bosnia but you don't care because you only want to to promote your idiotic racist conspiracy theories about Jews.
On that topic, I was recently reminded how Ralph Nader's campaign brought us W.
Also worth pointing out that him and his buddy are all for Americans lobbying about the Israeli Palestinian conflict but accuses pro-Israeli Americans of lobbying for a foreign government. Instead he goes with the old school anti-Jewish tropes about not being loyal and accusing them of assassinating JFK.
As usual, when challenged by reality, just scream that everyone else is committing genocide.
