3998704

October 24th, 2007 09:59 PM

Let me just name a few, I know I'll miss plenty.
People's Republic of China,
Cambodia,
East Timor,
Sudan(for decades now, why bother trying to make treaties anymore?),
Bosnia/former Yugoslavia,
Rwanda,
DRC/Zaire/whatever else it has been named,
Burma/Myanmar,
Malaysia(the suppression of that rebellion was accomplished mainly by genocide),
Indonesia,
Iraq,
Iran,
the ones on this list:http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POSTWWII.TAB.GIF, coming out to about 10 million...

3998880

October 25th, 2007 03:35 AM

Genocide, yay. Instead of specifically executing the real trouble makers, you are just going to massacre lots and lots of innocent. And then you'd still be left with your troublemakers at home, including those trouble makers who suggest massmurder for solving problems.

If you are suggesting a genocide as a solution, then you are just as bad as the people you are having in mind when suggesting this.Well, the actual question is whether the Jews were a real problem or just a scapegoat.

Regardless, eliminating a scapegoat won't solve the actual problem, but make it seemingly disappear, until the problem comes through again and a new scapegoat must be found.

Overall, this is really subjective. The people who appear troublesome to you might see you as troublesome.

Also, if you are not open to peace right now, seeing how this is a rather ignorant suggestion, why should there surprisingly be peace when this suggestion prevails?


P.S.: Utilitarianism fails.

3998909

October 25th, 2007 04:26 AM

Death that occurs close to you has obviously more of an impact, but that doesn't mean that the life of the people who died was more valuable or that they somehow earned your respect, it just means that they were closer to you.



What do you mean with that? In most societies murder is considered morally wrong and sanctioned by law at the same time.

Even if you were right and abortion was morally wrong in every case that would only mean that people are inconsequent in their behaviour, which is still better than flat out accepting or even supporting murder.


Speak for yourself. In my experience people are able to control their destructive urges using basic moral concepts.

It is nothing new that people have the potential to do great harm, but that does not mean that using this potential is inevitable. If history shows us cases of people who comitted genocide then this only means that those people had a rather strange set of moral concepts. Just look at those parts of history where people managed to live together without devastating conflicts.


Even then I doubt that you'd end up with less dead. Let's just take a conflict and do the math. Afghanistan during Soviet rule, for example. I took this conflict because it fits to the ones described in the first post and ended when the Soviets decided to leave.
Genocide of the population would have caused 20-30 million deaths vs. one or two million dead on Afghanistan's side and some ten thousand Soviet soldiers.
If you like you can add the casualties from the current conflcts as well, it's still a much smaller number.

And don't forget that in a conventional war a lot of the people killed are soldiers while genocide does not differ between those responsible and innocents.


If you're seriously advocating genocide as means of solving problems why stop there? You could just as well abolish due proess and simply shoot all those accused of a cimre. Chances are you will kill less innocents that way.


What most people here seem to forget is that in order to use genocide you'd first have to convert to a police-state or something similar.

3998921

October 25th, 2007 04:39 AM

Death solves all of lifes problems. Though it's the ultimate solution, an extreme solution.

Second best solution would be to be selfish and not care about other nations/powers. It would for example save a lot of recourses to leave Africa alone (nevermind who drained the country of the recourses).

The generally favoured solution is to aid others, either because of a feeling of guilt or because it's "the right thing to do". This will cost you recources (men, food, money, ...) though but is rewarded by making people feel good for doing "the right thing". To coornidate such "third party interverence" you probbly would need a independant or atleast democratic power. This is currently resembled by the UN. Though the UN has it's flaws (one country having more power for a certain reason then an other for example).

Good question. I think it mostly has to do with correcting past fuckups. "we are responsible for the current mess, we ought to correct this".

3998928

October 25th, 2007 05:01 AM

I wish I had time right now to reply to all the points raised properly, but I really need an hour or so to sit down and go through this. As I'm at work this is not currently possible. Maybe I will have time tonight. I just wanted to say before this goes off on a tangent, that you're (not all but some) getting the wrong impression.

The dictionary definition of genocide is:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Thos examples Crazy Wolf supplied of genocide are not true cases. They are attempts, but were never successful. In WWII the Nazis attempted the genocide of the Jews, they were not successful. If the group or race survives it is mass murder rather than genocide. Only if the group is rendered extinct is it true genocide.

You guys need to start looking at the bigger picture. Fancy-schmancy, when talking about war I was referring to the ideological/racial battle between the Palestinians and the Jews. You're trying to dump that into conventional terms. Sure, yes, human wave tactics do not work on open ground, sure, yes, the Israelis are backed by American might and firepower, but you're not seeing the situation as it is. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and there's more than one way to fight a war. Look at the Cold War, fought through proxy forces and the power of capitalism versus socialism. Look at Gandhi's struggle. Was the fight for Indian independence not a war? The war has enveloped us all and we sleep soundly in our beds at night. The war is on our streets, in our towns. We live and work with the enemy and don't realise it.

If the war is to preserve your way of life and your way of life is changed through immigration, have you lost that war? No a single shot was fired but the war was lost regardless.

In the southern states of America, the Mexicans are taking control. They work better and cheaper than the whites which means Americans lose jobs. Without a job there is no money, without money there is no power. If you have a million Mexicans to 500,000 Americans and there is an election between an American candidate and a Mexican candidate. Who would win? Human nature is to stick to racial lines. We like to think we're a multi-cultural hands-across-the-ocean global society, but the news and history tells a different story. In Iraq the Iraqis, the Kurds and the Turks are embroiled in a struggle. The Sunnis and the Shi-ites are against each other. Do you think that the Mexicans are going to embrace your ways and your people? They're going to stick together and you're going to lose this war you don't even know you're in.

Here in the UK, the Asians are migrating in their thousands. Entire cities are being turned over to immigrants. The original population moves out and they are replaced by more immigrants, because these groups stick together. There is talk of adopting Shariah Law in the UK. Shariah Law!!! We've grown so soft that we do not see the hidden invasion. First come the people, then the customs, then the laws. We sit idly by hooked on shite TV and junk food and oblivious to the battle that goes on. Our way of life is being eroded and we're doing nothing about it.

But I digress. I'll come back to this when I can. Hopefully tonight. Just don't dismiss this off hand.

Also, don't make comments like this:

Because that's just retarded. . .

3998948

October 25th, 2007 05:24 AM

If your idea actually happened, the "side" causing the most trouble and being the biggest threat would be the one commiting the genocide. In which case it would be best for world peace if the side advocating the genocide of the other would be the one to die out.

Besides, you are assuming that everyone goes along with it. If enough people were disgusted at the government for eliminating millions of innocent people, don't you think that they would become the new trouble makers?



Just out of curiosity, is your genocide idea merely an "I bet I can out-argue these people even if I argue in favour of something totally ridiculous" kind of thing? Or are you more of a nutter than I first thought?

3999044

October 25th, 2007 07:09 AM

This is a problematic topic, but please follow Pub-rules anyway.

Like I said, I agree that immigration can be a problem but there are other options than completly stopping it.
I think it is not right to call this a hidden invasion. People migrate mostly because of economic differences between countries or prosecution in their homeland, not because they all have a secret plan to take over a country. It is of course possible that a result of migration is a change of one's culture but it should be possible to stop such a change if it is not wanted (we have laws to put radical immigrants are under surveillance, for example).
There are already so many immigrants in most European countries that a hostile stance towards foreigners will make segregation only worse.

As for Israel, I don't really know what you mean. They've been under all sorts of attacks since their state was founded but they still seem to do rather well. There may have been points in Israel's history where it was close to being wiped off the map, but then Israel was facing conventional war. The current problems (mostly rocket-attacks and sometimes suicie-bombers) don't really seem so bad compared to that.

3999203

October 25th, 2007 09:31 AM

Well, the Holocaust as an example of a mostly successful geocide so far as you define it as removal of a people from a place. Prior to 1940 there were some 500,000 Jews in Germany. 1945? about 10,000. Thats a hell of a population reduction.

3999475

October 25th, 2007 12:18 PM

It was "meant" to solve a growing depression in Germany, through the holocaust they killed and looted part of German after labeling them non German, though ultimately they "solved" their depression by robbing Germany for the good of Germany.

3999542

October 25th, 2007 01:06 PM

The issues you bring up AZH are more closely related to inept governments remaining inept while well-abled citizens watch it crumble. Genocide is not needed to fix this issue, following the rules of nature and logic are. World peace is attainable if evil is rooted out; the real question is whether or not people around the globe are willing to do so. If the answer to the question is no, nature will automatically reset after we kill each other.