I'm a paratrooper in the U.S. Army

i think he has to be.

 

i plan to save the world through my frenzied, meaningless, frenetic and drug induced "insights," and complete lack of sensitivity and rational thought processes. wish me luck!

 

Ofcourse its a bloody genocide.
Direct , unlawful , intention killing of civillians who pose no threat , purely because of their racial or ethnic background or allegiance.Its as per the UN definition ,and therefore it by no means has to aim to kill all of a race or group , or even a large proportion of it.

Its exactly like what the Germans did against Jews , Slavs , gypsies , gays etc.( Strange how its often called the "Jewish holocaust" or "Holocaust" only in reference to Jews , when Slavs actually suffered a similar amount or more murders).

No its not like Nazism.In some ways its worse , because it would be easier for people to stop it.

Sorry I think your post is absoluely ridiculous.Oh and "disrespectful" as you put it.
Youre basically saying "ahh its only 700 000 Arabs , there's plenty of em left".

What shocks me is that certain sections of the media would have us believe there was only ever one "Holocaust" , and solely against Jewish people.There were Holocausts before and after - some instigated by Jews eg Kissinger and Vietnam.

And before someone accuses me of "Jew bashing" , I would like to point out that some of *my* relatives ( Jewish) were murdered by the Germans.
The only thing is , it doesnt look like much was learned since 1945...

 

You're wrong in so many places.

Firstly, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide which was adopted by the United Nations states under Article II that 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group' defines genocide. So essentially you're wrong and it is in fact not genocide under the UN conventions, contrary to your belief. If this was genocide the UN would most certainly be intervening.

Secondly, the word 'Holocaust' is a translation from the Hebrew word 'Shoah' which was used by Isreali politicians and writers following the war to specifically define the genocide of the Jews during the war. Of course, it has since been used on a much wider sense, but actually it is in reference to the Jews on it's most fundamental level.

How can you say that it's worse because people could actually stop it? Where's the sense in that statement, it seems to be lost in the shit that's dribbling from the side of your crusty mouth?

The estimates of the Iraqi casualties because of the war vary so much that an accurate number wouldn't even be available yet until the war ends. Also, I'm not excusing the death of any number of people, but comparing it to something totally different and on a massive level is disrespectful because of the very intention of the Holocaust.

I reiterate: this is NOT genocide or comparable to the Holocaust. To do so totally trivialises the effect the Holocaust had on people, Europe and the world. It gives the Nazis a complete lack of credit for being an intelligence that managed to do such atrocities. I suggest you try and find some sources suggesting this 'genocide'.

 

Hitler was an arsehole as were so many of his countrymen.
But if you did some research you'd see that Bxsh's "freedom" politics came from Univ of Chicago , which in turn came from 1940s Germany and Austria and 19 thCent Austria- and emerged in the 1990s far right Freedom Party of Halder in Austria.

Bottom line is , you wish to trivialise mass murder , because you think Arabia "isnt very important" compared to Europe or the Jewish race.
As for sources , start with the BMA , and Red Cross.

Looks like your trip to Auchwitz was wasted IMO.

 

The war isn't for the intent to kill Arabs! It's not genocide!

The word 'Holocaust' comes from the Greek word, true. But it has since been adapted by the Latin version of 'holocaustum' which refers directly to a massacre of the Jews by Richard the 1st in the 1190s.

How easy do you honestly think it is to prevent political issues? If preventing a war is that easy we wouldn't have any wars! It's not a debate about which issue is worse, it's about the comparison between the two.

'You think Arabia "isnt very important" compared to Europe or the Jewish race', do you really have to resort to putting words in my mouth?

I ain't looking for your own evidence; you have to prove your side of the debate to convince me. Like where did you find that Bush's politics came from Germany and Austria. If you have a direct source I'll be happy to read it.

 

This is not genocide, yet at the same time this has been cooking up as a war between the West and the East. A war between the modern world and fundamental Islam.


Yet, calling this a genocide or a holocaust is simply idiotic.

 

Well given that you defend genocide by saying "ahh 700 000 people isnt like the number of Jewish people killed" , I dont really see any point.I assume you can use a search engine tho?

LA Matthews , Sir Rubin , with your opinions , far from making a memorial to the Jewish people who were the victims of genocide youve done the opposite.
ie youve said "Ahh yes there's millions being killed but ahh it was just a side effect , a bit of collateral damage , only Arabs , lets have cheap petrol "

ie betraying and disrespecting the memory of all people who were the victims of genocide.
And the worst part is , I think you can see that , but dont want to accept it.

 

You have a misconception of the term "genocide". LA Matthews did a wonderful job trying to explain it to you.

There isn't a genocide in Iraq, just a terrible occupation which has to stop. No one is undermining the deaths, don't be stupid.

 

"Dont be stupid" you say?
Well its obvious you two have a monopoly on that one.
But if it makes you feel happy arguing black is white because theyre "only Arabs" keep doing it...

And I notice how you ducked out of the Richard 1st part...

YOU have a misconception of the term genocide.Pop off to the UN website if you wish.Oh and by the way , Ive got a degree with the subject - International Relats and the UN Convention on Human Rights etc etc.
And no it wasnt from an Arab university.

La Mathews and yourself have done a "wonderful job" yes on illustrating the extreme Zionocentric zealot's bizarre view of the world.
How on Earth anybody can say that the genocide in Arabia "trivialises" something is beyond me , and beyond most people.

Next time you hear an anti Jewish comment , ask yourself what might have/probably caused it.

Anyway , I'll leave you to carry on saying how the fact of mass murder "trivaliases" whats important to you...

 

well, i guess we just have to move all the jews again because people can't figure out a way to deal with historical migrations and loss of land. damn the luck.

 

I'm not defending genocide! I haven't got a clue what you're reading, but it seems like you're just reading what you want to hear. All I'm saying is is that it isn't genocide, and the UN convention on genocide (atleast the only one I can find) states itself that it ISN'T genocide by definition. Find me the one you're talking about, because I sure as hell can't and I've looked.

And of course the death of civilians is a side effect: it's war for God's sake! I'm not saying it's right, far from it, but to compare it to something like the Holocaust lacks all credibility because I don't think there's any proof that Arabs have been systematically killed because they are Arabs. The fact that they've died is -- I reiterate AGAIN -- because of circumstance. It would be the same wherever the hell the war is. WAR OFTEN KILLS PEOPLE: FACT. WAR IS NOT GENOCIDE: FACT.

Rather than consulting the question at hand, you're just consulting your own emotions on what you want to hear, rather than what's being said. By putting words in my mouth, you're just kidding yourself into thinking you're right rather than proving me wrong.

As for the Richard I part...What is there to even talk about? Of course he didn't kill 700,000 Jews. I only mentioned that because it related to the etymology of the word 'Holocaust'.

If you want to think you're right carry on, because there's no hope for your stubborness. But if you want to prove to me you have credit in your argument I'd love to hear it, because I've yet to have seen any yet.

 

were gonna have to get rid of at least 800million muslims for it to ever be considered genocide

 

Exactly what i was thinking

 

Holocaust is Hebrew for a burnt offering. Look it up.

 

Yeah, I was wrong on that. I got confused and meant that Shoah was the adopted Hebrew translation of 'Holocaust' refering to The Holocaust, rather than the other way around.

 

maybe 800million is too low? hmmm

we still got lots of work to do though, more bombs to be dropped

 

I assume you're in good shape.

Take care of yourself.