PDA

View Full Version : Can the world stop genocide?



LaoSexMachine
10-14-2007, 11:25 AM
Can the world stop genocide?
A conference in the Canadian city of Montreal has been discussing ways to prevent genocide. BBC world affairs correspondent Mark Doyle, attending the meeting, asks whether this can be done.

The 75-year-old woman sat on stage in front of hundreds of United Nations officials, legal experts and academics. The day before, Marika Nene had travelled from Hungary to Canada - the first plane she had ever taken on her first journey outside Hungary.
She was not intimidated by the gathering. Her long hair was lit up by a stage light and her facial features were strong.
But the strongest thing about Marika Nene, a Roma - or Gypsy - woman who was trapped in the anti-Gypsy pogroms during World War II, was her determination to tell her story.
"I had no choice. I had to give myself up to the soldiers," Marika Nene said through a translator.
"I was a very pretty little gypsy woman and of course the soldiers took me very often to the room with a bed in it where they violated me. I still have nightmares about it".
Many members of Marika Nene's Roma family died in the work camps and the ghettos.
She had travelled to Montreal to give a reality check to the experts and UN officials at the "Global Conference on the Prevention of Genocide".



We do not need to have a legal finding that genocide has been committed in order to take preventive action
Payam Akhavan
Former war crimes prosecutor
She was joined by other survivors - from Rwanda, Cambodia and the Jewish holocaust. They all told their horrific stories bravely. But there was something especially extraordinary about the elderly Roma who had transported herself from a village in eastern Hungary into the glare of an international conference in one of the most modern cities in the world.
It was an example of what Nigerian Nobel Prize-winning author Wole Soyinka would later describe to me as one of those points where people meet each other in a spirit of "egalitarian awareness".
Six million Jews or one million Tutsis are just numbers. But this strong Roma woman was a human being who was not ashamed to tell her story.
Betrayal
The Montreal conference drew personalities from the UN, academia and the legal profession.


The general aim was to build pressure on politicians to take mass killings - even in far-off places about which we know little and sometimes care less - far more seriously. If that sounds like a fuzzy and vague ambition, Canadian Gen Romeo Dallaire, who commanded a UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, begged to differ.
Gen Dallaire led a force in Rwanda which was betrayed by UN headquarters in New York - his mission was starved of resources and so forced to observe genocide rather than stop it.
Since that failed mission, he has made a career out of lobbying politicians to do better on issues like peacekeeping, abolishing the use of child soldiers and nuclear disarmament.
"This conference is aimed especially at young people," said Gen Dallaire from a hotel surrounded by the campus buildings of McGill University, which organised the conference.
"If these young people became politically active," he continued, "they could dictate a whole new concept of what national interest should be and what humanity should be."
What is genocide?
Payam Akhavan, professor of international law at McGill and a former prosecutor at the UN war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said defining genocide mattered from a legal point of view - but that analysing how it could be prevented was the real point.


"The legal definition of genocide is contained in the 1948 Genocide convention," he told me. "In simple terms, it is the intentional, collective destruction of an entire human group based on national, racial, religious or ethnic identity."
"But the key point", Mr Akhavan continued, "is that we do not need to have a legal finding that genocide has been committed in order to take preventive action."
That is because, of course, by the time the lawyers have decided a mass killing fits their definition, it is usually too late to act.
The Iranian-born professor said it was necessary to think about the ingredients of genocide, which he listed as:


incitement to ethnic hatred
demonisation of the target group
radicalisation along ethnic or religious lines
distribution of weapons to extremist groups
preparation of lists of those to be exterminated Similarities
As someone who personally witnessed and reported on the Rwandan genocide, I found it quite disturbing to read about other mass killings.



Genocides can only be stopped by the people directly involved
Gerard Prunier

It was not the details which I found shocking, but the spooky similarities that kept cropping up across the world.

The lists prepared by the Hutu extremists in Rwanda, for example, were mirrored by the obsessive recording of the details of victims by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
The yellow identity stars Jews were forced to wear in World War II were the equivalent of the ethnic identity cards every Rwandan had to carry.
This is the grim opposite of Wole Soyinka's "egalitarian awareness". It is the social science of genocide, which appears to have common features across history.
The conference aimed to isolate and analyse Mr Akhavan's "early warning" factors to raise awareness.
But what to do with the information?
As speaker after speaker reminded the Montreal conference, the US government, among others, has asserted that genocide is being committed right now in the Darfur region of Sudan.
It was continuing even as we sipped our coffee in softly carpeted rooms and nibbled our Canadian canapes.
Everyone has known about it for several years but virtually nothing had been done to stop it.
A dissident voice
So all the talk about "early warnings" and "United Nations peacekeeping forces" and "the will of the international community" could be said to amount to little.


At this point, a controversial scholar intervened with comments which challenged the entire conference. French author Gerard Prunier, like the proverbial ghost at a wedding, said genocides could not be prevented by the international community.
"When you see a dictatorial regime heating up, everyone starts talking, talking, talking ... and by the time the talking stops, either matters have quietened down or they have happened."
And that is the crux of the matter, according to Mr Prunier - it is difficult for politicians or the military to intervene in a situation that has not yet evolved into a crisis.

Give war a chance?
So what is Mr Prunier's solution?
"Genocides can only be stopped by the people directly involved - and usually that means people involved in the war that accompanies most mass killings."
And if it is the government committing the genocide, the solution is "arm the rebels", he says.
"It won't be clean - it will be messy," the French author said, "but it is more likely to stop the mass killing than international intervention."
To a large extent, Mr Prunier has history on his side. The Holocaust only ended when the allies destroyed Hitler's regime.
The killing fields of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge were only stopped when the Vietnamese army moved in. And the genocide in Rwanda only ended when the Tutsi rebels overthrew the extremist Hutu regime.
Against this, it could be argued that some interventions have worked - for example the Nigerian intervention in Liberia, which was followed up by a UN peacekeeping mission.
It seems that resolving dramatic human rights abuses may require some of the diplomacy and the "international good will" that flowed so freely in Montreal.
But as well as what Winston Churchill called "Jaw Jaw", some situations, it seems, may only be resolved by "War War".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7043411.stm

vinny_121_ND
10-14-2007, 12:03 PM
Nope. Genocide investigators have found enough evidence of genocide by the top leaders of sudan, but they can't go in and arrest them. By the time genocide has been recognized, it's too late for anything to be done. Arresting people won't deter further genocide in the future.

AgentX
10-14-2007, 12:12 PM
Yes, we can stop genocides ...but only if hatred is eliminated - forever.

Prozium FTW!

Lov3ll
10-14-2007, 12:14 PM
No as the article states by the time people accept that genocide is happening it's to late.

NuckmasterJ
10-14-2007, 12:31 PM
The quickest way to stop Genocide is to commit Genocide against those who would commit the act in the name of religion or insanity.

The difference between us and them would be we do it so a threat has been neutralized and a civil populace can sleep at night without threat of death. Others (Dafur muslims) do it because their backwards archaic religious leaders say its a good thing.

You can't stop Genocide with any other tactic or weapon other then Genocide. Not precision weapons, UN Battalions or a defensive line of bunkers, barbed wires and automated machine gun nests. A pure and simple Thermobaric weapon over the offenders city(s) would do the job.

Call me crazy but I would risk hell (if there is one) by killing thousands or millions to end the problem. Take one for the team. Needs of the many out way the needs of the few, or me.

deadtired
10-14-2007, 12:51 PM
The quickest way to stop Genocide is to commit Genocide against those who would commit the act in the name of religion or insanity.

The difference between us and them would be we do it so a threat has been neutralized and a civil populace can sleep at night without threat of death. Others (Dafur muslims) do it because their backwards archaic religious leaders say its a good thing.

You can't stop Genocide with any other tactic or weapon other then Genocide. Not precision weapons, UN Battalions or a defensive line of bunkers, barbed wires and automated machine gun nests. A pure and simple Thermobaric weapon over the offenders city(s) would do the job.

Call me crazy but I would risk hell (if there is one) by killing thousands or millions to end the problem. Take one for the team. Needs of the many out way the needs of the few, or me.


Wouldn't that then make you part of the problem? Wouldn't that mean that, since you are committing genocode, that someone would be right in slaughtering you and all who think like you?


See how that cycle of thinking works?

NuckmasterJ
10-14-2007, 01:02 PM
Wouldn't that then make you part of the problem? Wouldn't that mean that, since you are committing genocode, that someone would be right in slaughtering you and all who think like you?


See how that cycle of thinking works?


The difference is why. The ends justifies the means. Kill all those who would commit the act in the name of religion or power to ensure peace to those whom the act would be committed against.

We wouldn't be doing it because a deity which has yet to be proven real told us to, we're doing it so men, women and children can grow up and experience life.

vinny_121_ND
10-14-2007, 01:26 PM
NuckmasterJ, I don't think you voted for NDP or the liberal party. I understand your logic, but this world is way more complicated than that. Nobody has ever heard of Darfur before the genocide started happening. Genocide happens in areas where there is poverty, no tv, no internet, no news media to broadcast to the world the problems. There's no police, no law enforcement agency to deal with men with arms and machetes. Only civil societies with strict laws, good upbringing can stop crazy people from going crazy.

NuckmasterJ
10-14-2007, 01:49 PM
NuckmasterJ, I don't think you voted for NDP or the liberal party. I understand your logic, but this world is way more complicated than that. Nobody has ever heard of Darfur before the genocide started happening. Genocide happens in areas where there is poverty, no tv, no internet, no news media to broadcast to the world the problems. There's no police, no law enforcement agency to deal with men with arms and machetes. Only civil societies with strict laws, good upbringing can stop crazy people from going crazy.

You can't bring a civil society to the places were Genocide regularly happens though. It's simpler and cleaner to eliminate the problem at its roots (Thermobaric's over city(s)) and let those who desire peace rebuild over the rubble with the aide of civil society's which can then attempt to modernize and civilize those that remain.

Hilbert
10-14-2007, 02:04 PM
People will always kill each other for one reason or another, plain and simple. There's no way to stop this, it is in our nature to destroy each other. This I firmly believe, as long as humans are around - this can never be stopped.

The Blacksmith
10-14-2007, 02:04 PM
People always have and always will take one anothers lives wether it be a single murder or on a larger scale (genocide) a sad reality.

gaijinsamurai
10-14-2007, 02:17 PM
Sadly, no. The world supposedly learned a lesson after the Jewish Holocaust. But since then, we've had kass murder occur in Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Darfur.
And when a simple resolution comes before the US Congress, in the hopes of paying respect to the victims and holding the perpetrators morally accountable, our president tries to stop it, in the name of international politics.

Kilkenny
10-14-2007, 06:35 PM
....................................................

little icebear
10-14-2007, 06:47 PM
Although I oppose the Death Penalty I can´t see how it fits into this context.

gaijinsamurai
10-14-2007, 08:08 PM
Executions of deserving criminals and genocide are not the same thing. If you want to discuss the merits/negatives of the death penalty, please open a new thread.

Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-14-2007, 08:18 PM
I find the death penalty no different. Both are state ordered and sanctioned executions after all.

Hollis
10-14-2007, 08:20 PM
KilKenny in regards to your Off Topic post!!!!:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/SmokeyStupidPosts.jpg

Hilbert
10-14-2007, 08:22 PM
lol.
Beautiful Hollis.

Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-14-2007, 08:23 PM
KilKenny in regards to your Off Topic post!!!!:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/SmokeyStupidPosts.jpg

Why don't we practice what we preach shall we?

LaoSexMachine
10-14-2007, 08:28 PM
Death penalty is not genocide. Punishment for murder is punishment. US system is not crime and rehab but crime and punishment.

Back on topic. Like others have said we can't stop genocide. There has always been genocide in human history. Always will be no matter how "advance" we think we are.

Violet Fashion by Mindy
10-14-2007, 08:30 PM
Best that we agree to disagree on this.

LaoSexMachine
10-14-2007, 08:32 PM
Disagreement is part of human nature. Just like systematic killing of a certain "ethnic, cultural, or political group".

California Joe
10-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Kilkenny, take your axe somewhere else to grind or I'll bounce you out of here.

Min, it's not the same thing and you damned well know it.

gaijinsamurai
10-14-2007, 08:39 PM
So, back on topic.

Should we try to stop genocide? Assuming the answer is "yes", to what lengths should we go?

For example, Rwanda. It is an absolute shame that nations which had the ability to stop the Hutus did nothing to prevent it. That having been said, i can see why the US, for one, did not intervene, given the bloody nose we incurred in Somalia almost immediately before. The sight of American soldiers mutilated and dragged around by cheering crowds of the people we went there to try to help were just too fresh in peoples' minds. Politically, staying out of Africa for a while was a no-brainer.

AgentX
10-14-2007, 09:11 PM
Death penalty is not genocide. Punishment for murder is punishment.
Murder for murder is not punishment. It isn't exactly genocide in the strictest of terms, but definitely not punishment.

LaoSexMachine
10-14-2007, 09:20 PM
Murder for murder is not punishment. It isn't exactly genocide in the strictest of terms, but definitely not punishment.

Yes it is. The ULTIMATE punishment. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

AgentX
10-14-2007, 09:34 PM
Yes it is. The ULTIMATE punishment.
It isn't punishment. It's extermination - a revenge at best.

LaoSexMachine
10-14-2007, 09:39 PM
It isn't punishment. It's extermination - a revenge at best.

Extermination of murderers? I want what you are smoking. Why have a justice system at all? The Justice system is basically revenge. Can't be civil in a civil society? Then pay the price.

gaijinsamurai
10-14-2007, 09:41 PM
AgentX, a mod has already warned about turning this tread into a debate about the death penalty. I'd suggest you take your argument elsewhere.

digrar
10-14-2007, 10:04 PM
Very last chance gentlemen. Don't let this get side tracked by a troll.

number nine
10-14-2007, 11:10 PM
Now OT, genocide cannot be eradicated in my opinion. No matter how hopeful you are, nothing points that in the future such mass murder will not take place. Can we eradicate crime, for example, because we can deal with crime much more efficiently, or there are over and over again those who think it does pay?

Hollis
10-14-2007, 11:27 PM
So, back on topic.

Should we try to stop genocide? Assuming the answer is "yes", to what lengths should we go?

For example, Rwanda. It is an absolute shame that nations which had the ability to stop the Hutus did nothing to prevent it. That having been said, i can see why the US, for one, did not intervene, given the bloody nose we incurred in Somalia almost immediately before. The sight of American soldiers mutilated and dragged around by cheering crowds of the people we went there to try to help were just too fresh in peoples' minds. Politically, staying out of Africa for a while was a no-brainer.

I think it is possible to end genocide. Not necessary right now, but not too long in the future. Look at the last 100 years.

gaijinsamurai
10-14-2007, 11:29 PM
I see two major factors contributing to the inability to stop genocide:

1. Involvement: most countries' citizens don't want their troops marching off in "foreign entanglements" that don't effect them. Putting a stop to genocide means possibly committing your troops to participating in a potentially lengthy civil war.

2. Definition. The term "genocide" is a politically-loaded word. Governments cringe over it, as we saw last week with the US Congress and the Armenian Genocide resolution. With organizations like the UN, there is likely to be at least one member of the Security Council who is capable of using their veto power to act as an obstacle, or at least prolong the debate on whether there should be intervention, that can last for months, until the victims are nothing but skeletons.

little icebear
10-14-2007, 11:57 PM
If memory serves me right, there was a NATO intervention in Former Yugoslavia in order to stop or prevent what was considered to be a Genocide or at least might become one.

gaijinsamurai
10-15-2007, 12:39 AM
Yes, there was. But only after stories of mass executions and destruction of entire villages had been circulating for months.

Ordie
10-15-2007, 12:42 AM
I think we're improving in terms of preventing genocide.

Here's a brief done by Simon Frasier University in Canada.






°

Notwithstanding the escalating violence in Iraq and the widening war in Darfur, the new data indicate that from

the beginning of 2002 to the end of 2005, the number of armed conflicts being waged around the world shrank 15% from 66 to 56. By far the greatest decline was in sub-Saharan Africa.1
° Battle-death tolls declined worldwide by almost 40% between 2002 and 2005.2 Battle-death statistics are ****e to considerable error, however, so these findings should be treated with appropriate caution.
° The steep post-Cold War decline in genocides and other mass slaughters of civilians has continued. In 2005 there was just one ongoing genocide—in Darfur. In 1989 there were 10.3
° Growing numbers of wars are ending in negotiated settlements instead of being fought to the bitter end—a trend that reflects the increased commitment of the international community to peacemaking. In the Cold War era more wars were decided on the battlefield than ended in negotiation.
° The estimated number of displaced people around the world—refugees and internally displaced persons—fell from 34.2 million to 32.1 million between 2003 and 2005, a net decline of 6%.4
° The number of military coups and attempted coups fell from 10 in 2004 to just 3 in 2005, continuing an uneven decline from the 1963 high point of 25.5
But other trends are far from positive:
° Sub-Saharan Africa was the only region in the world to see a decline in armed conflicts. In four other regions of the world the number of armed conflicts increased between 2002 and 2005.
° International terrorist incidents increased threefold worldwide between 2002 and 2005, and the number of fatalities increased fivefold. Most of the increases were associated with the war in Iraq.
° Campaigns of organized violence against civilians have increased by 56% since 1989. Although most of these have killed relatively few people, this figure supports the popularly held belief that civilians are increasingly being victimized in the post-Cold War era by the perpetrators of political violence.
° The fact that more wars now end in negotiated settlements rather than victories is encouraging news for peacemakers. But it turns out that wars that end in negotiated settlements last three times longer than those that end in victories and are nearly twice as likely to restart within five years.


Genocides and Politicides


Barbara Harff of the United States Naval Academy defines genocides and politicides as campaigns of “political mass murder”
directed primarily against civilians that are intended to exterminate “in whole or in part” a communal or political group.A dataset compiled by Professor Harff shows the number of genocides rising steadily from 1956, peaking in the mid- to late-1970s, and then declining sharply from 1989 onward. Between 1989 and 2005 the number of these campaigns of political mass murder dropped by 90%.This trend closely follows the rise and decline of high-intensity civil conflicts over the same period—which is not surprising since most genocides/politicides take place in the context of civil wars.The sharp decline in these campaigns of mass killing of civilians since 1989 stands in marked contrast to the media and public perception that the number of genocides is increasing.




Source:http://www.hsrgroup.org/images/stories/HSBrief2006/contents/overview.pdf

loserbydefault
10-15-2007, 06:22 PM
yes we can stop it...

because the only problem existing on this planet is PSYCHOPATHY!

normal humans in general are altruistic and have a conscience etc...psychopaths don't and basically are a sub species, they are NOT human! they even have different brain wave patterns etc...they are predators, perfect machines without any conscience!...and the bad news is, they are also perfect actors and you cant simply identify if anyone is a psychopath just by looking or talking to them...but you'll know them by their fruits!

we are living in a total psychopathic competitive "dog eat dog" system created by inbred psychopaths(royal families etc) a looong time ago starting with a fiction called "money" and standing armies...

and that is the only reason why we have so many problems including war and genocide! welcome to the new world order, welcome to hell on earth...


(...)Despite their failures, psychopaths have a very "narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement, and see themselves as the center of the universe, as superior beings who are justified in living according to their own rules." [Hare, 38].(...)

(...)In other words, in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society "adaptive" to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone.(...)you better start doing your homework on this subject to find out what these creatures are and how they operate, because its not them "americans", them "jews", them "moslems", them "reptilians" or any other aliens or tinfoil theory crap...psychopathy is no conspiracy theory!


Psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them; obtaining money for them, prestige, power, or even standing up for them when others try to expose them. But that is their claim to fame. That’s what they do. And they do it very well. What’s more, the job is very easy because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man which, I should add, has been programmed into normal people by psychopaths.

Returning to the work of Lobaczewski, he next gives us the most important clues as to how and why a truly global conspiracy can and does exist on our planet though it certainly isn’t a conspiracy in the normally accepted sense of the word. You could even say that such conspiracies arise simply as a natural result of the un-bridgeable divide between normal people and deviants. In a certain sense, understanding the view the psychopath has of “normal people,” that they are “other” and even “foreign,” helps us to realize how such conspiracies can be so “secret” - though that is not the precise word we would like to use. Even if different ponerological groups are opposed to each other, they will still exclude "normal people" from their confidences. It is only the "normal" people who have been induced into their webs that provide the "leaks." Lobaczewski describes it in the following way:

In any society in this world, psychopathic individuals and some of the other deviants create a ponerogenically active network of common collusions, partially estranged from the community of normal people. Some inspirational role of the essential psychopathy in this network also appears to be a common phenomenon.

They are aware of being different as they obtain their life experience and become familiar with different ways of fighting for their goals. Their world is forever divided into “us and them” - their world with its own laws and customs and that other foreign world full of presumptuous ideas and customs in light of which they are condemned morally.

Their “sense of honor” bids them cheat and revile that other human world and its values. In contradiction to the customs of normal people, they feel non-fulfillment of their promises or obligations is customary behavior.

They also learn how their personalities can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of those normal people, and how to take advantage of this root of terror for purposes of reaching their goals.

This dichotomy of worlds is permanent and does not disappear even if they succeed in realizing their dreams of gaining power over the society of normal people. This proves that the separation is biologically conditioned.

In such people a dream emerges like some youthful Utopia of a “happy” world and a social system which would not reject them or force them to submit to laws and customs whose meaning is incomprehensible to them. They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality [i.e. lying, cheating, destroying, using others, etc] would dominate, where they would, of course, be assured safety and prosperity. Those “others” - different, but also more technically skillful - should be put to work to achieve this goal. “We,” after all, will create a new government, one of justice [for psychopaths]. They are prepared to fight and suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such a vision justifies killing people whose suffering does not move them to compassion because “they” are not quite conspecific.

And there it is. Lobaczewski has said outright that psychopaths - from a certain perspective - are a different type of human being, a type that is aware of its difference from childhood. Put this together with his statement that such individuals recognize their own kind, and consider normal people as completely “other,” and we can begin to understand why and how conspiracies can and do exist among such individuals. They collect together, with similar worldviews, like fat floating on a bowl of soup. When one of them begins to rant, others like them - or those with brain damage that makes them susceptible - “rally round the flag,” so to say. And what's more, they know this and know how it works.

Speaking of networks, we need to take a closer look at how psychopaths affect other human beings whom they use to create the basis for their rule in macro-social dynamics. This highlights the fact that the lack of psychological knowledge among the general public, not to mention the general neurosis of most people, make them vulnerable to such predators.




But we have already noted the reason: the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopathy and in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive. When the rules are set up to make a society “adaptive” to psychopathy, it makes sociopaths of everyone. As a consequence, a very large number of Americans are effective sociopaths. (Here we use “sociopath” as a designation of those individuals who are not genetic psychopaths.)

And so, we have George Bush and the Fourth Reich calculating how much they can get away with by looking at the history of the reactions of the American people to cheating.

There aren’t any because the system is adaptive to psychopathy. In other words, Americans support Bush and his agenda because most of them are effectively like him. But that is not because they are all born that way. It is because psychopathy is required to survive in the competitive, capitalist U.S. Society.

As a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, promoting the use of “cheating strategies” in life that then make the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general because those who are suffering will respond positively to any sign of change, even if they don’t realize that the change is being proposed by those who will actually make their lives worse.

Psychopathic behavior among non-genetic psychopaths could be viewed as a functional method of obtaining desirable resources, increasing an individual’s status in a local group, and even a means of providing stimulation that socially and financially successful people find in acceptable physical and intellectual challenges.



Consider all of the foregoing information now in relation to the 9/11 attacks and the fact that so many Americans find it almost impossible to believe that their government officials would wantonly sacrifice the lives of its citizens to further their personal agendas. More importantly, consider the fact that your government knows how you think only too well. In fact, they have CREATED your thinking processes!http://youtube.com/watch?v=0v7PJmKKsfM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QSQsJKGuITA

AK-Lover
10-15-2007, 10:02 PM
I think term genocide is being thrown around too lightly in these days. Genocide was holocaust, genocide was Cambodia. But I don't think Darfur for example should be classified as genocide yet. I think it needs to be accepted fact that when religious or ethnic groups engage in conflict with one another it is usually in vengeance of past grievances and so on.

gaijinsamurai
10-16-2007, 10:55 AM
.....which echoes the point I previously made. When world organizations try to meet to reach an agreement to try to stop mass killings, it is often difficult to reach a concensus on whether or not the problem meets the definition of "genocide", further complicating and delaying efforts to end it.

Mastermind
10-16-2007, 12:02 PM
The world can stop genocide...on the day human beings are removed from the planet, human genocide will end.