Usually—or, rather, in the past—the word "genocide" has meant an effort to stamp out a race or ethnicity.

What about stamping out a religion, or any other religion than one's own? This is what ISIS is doing in the Middle East.

It's said that President Obama's administration hesitates to use that word because it would mean being under more intense pressure to do something about it. 

I think this opens up a lot of questions which I'll let you guys raise. I'll just give you this article for starters:

Congressman: Why won't Obama call ISIS massacres 'genocide'?

 

Views: 163

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Agree with you, IS is genocidal, but if yo are going to insist on them being called genocidal I think it right that Israel be called out for being Ethnic Cleansers.
Regards,
judith vd R.

Except that the Israelis are on defense, not offense, except as retaliation.

Except that the Israelis are on defense, not offense, except as retaliation.

But that "retaliation" is something like 10 times more fatal, in spite of the fact that Israel has higher tech, more surgical killing technology.

When someone hits you, you hit them back harder. That's how it's always been done.

Oh gawd, I almost added "and what good has that done for Israel" in that post, but held back.

Yeah, agreed, that's how it's always been done.

They live in a tough neighborhood amid peoples who don't want them there. It doesn't pay to pussyfoot around. It's not like acting nice will have their hostile neighbors knocking on their door with a housewarming gift.

It's not like slaughtering Palestinians endears them to become nicer.

Not even a Christian Israel would follow Jeebus's advice to turn the other cheek.

in the past—the word "genocide" has meant an effort to stamp out a race or ethnicity.

Why wouldn't it still mean that? From wikitionary: The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, social status, or other particularities.

What about stamping out a religion, or any other religion than one's own?

See above definition... genocide is more about the systematic killing than it is a description of the people being killed.

It's said that President Obama's administration hesitates to use that word because it would mean being under more intense pressure to do something about it.

That's a pretty clunky way of thinking... if ISIS is committing genocide, what the US decides to call it should be irrelevant to the political pressure to do something about it. Like you can call dog poo a "highly pungent, canine visitor's deposit" but the pressure to clean that shit up is still there.

I think the problem Obama has is his initial pledge to get us out of active participation in Middle Eastern strife. He'd probably like to leave office without getting us into yet another hell hole Middle Eastern war.

Especially when you'd think that European Christian countries and the Shia countries in the area should be much more concerned about ISIS than the American on the street. Yet, people turn to the US. Trump is making major hay by saying this is more Europe's problem than ours.

If we mobilize people to wipe out ISIS on the basis of their "genocide" (which is really more specifically on the basis of their sectarian-acide), then supporters of ISIS can call us wiping them out a "genocide".

In the big picture, I don't think it matters what it's called, except that I'd rather highlight the more general world problem of ideology trumping human rights, whether it's ISIS executing supposed infidels, or Saudi Arabia executing dissenters.

Yes

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service