8 posts shown.
bluerider63 said:I mean, what’s the point of even having a massive America when people are out here struggling just to keep their heads above water?
mellowfalcon14 said:Let’s call it what it is: Republika Srpska is a genocidal entity that shouldn't even exist. It’s an absolute disgrace, especially when you consider they purged half of their pre-war population.
William Fowler11 said:Because, unlike the other two groups, their home base is Canada, they tend to operate under this assumption that everything belongs exclusively to them.
James Nguyen13 said:It isn't.
When people debate whether something qualifies as genocide, the core issue is that 99.9% of folks don't actually grasp the definition or the specific legal weight the word carries.
Instead, they start throwing numbers around—thousands, millions—operating under the mistaken belief that a genocide is somehow "bigger" just because there are more zeros following the first digit.
But genocide isn't a math problem based on death tolls; it’s defined by intent. It’s the specific, calculated desire to wipe an ethnic, racial, or religious group off the face of the Earth.
That is the defining characteristic. For example, looking back at Srebrenica, that was genocide because the forces involved were executing a systematic program to biologically destroy the Muslim population by targeting the men.
On the flip side, take Mao Zedong. He caused the deaths of millions of Chinese citizens, but since he and his inner circle were Chinese themselves—and their goal wasn't to eradicate the Chinese people but rather to eliminate political opposition to their rule—it doesn't fit the definition of genocide.
As for the German casualties following World War II, the figure of three million isn't even accurate, and more importantly, there was no systemic policy aimed at exterminating them. Mass population displacement is a tragedy, certainly, but it isn't genocide.
silentbear42 said:So, I guess we're looking at support from more than 50% of the people who actually show up to vote, right?
slybison8 said:I suppose you've laid out this topic somewhat superficially, but perhaps we should let it remain for now—we shall see how the discussion evolves. That said, I feel that the forced displacement of a people, absent any mass killings or atrocities, shouldn't be labeled as genocide under any circumstances. The term genocide is strictly defined, and I worry that using it too loosely might only serve to devalue its actual meaning, much like the way terms like "fascism" or "anti-fascism" are often used today.
Additionally, I would kindly request that this discussion stays strictly within the realm of current politics. If the conversation begins to drift toward historical topics, it will likely be shut down or moved over to the History subforum.
I wonder, could the European Union serve as an appropriate framework for addressing the injustices faced by Germans following World War II? To me, that seems like a pertinent question that could be explored here.
Kevin Sullivan6 said:The Reconquista was frequently far bloodier than standard conquests because it was fueled by a deep-seated desire for vengeance, often stirred up by fiery sermons from the pulpit.
The accounts from Christian witnesses describing the recapture of nearby Klis are truly harrowing, and one can only imagine the oral traditions and historical records kept by the Turks regarding those crusader liberators.
Even residents from places like Zadar remember that crusader zeal, and it's no wonder the Turks, who weren't subjected to centuries of Papal brainwashing, feel differently.