Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genocide"
(Definitions and editorialisation) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT) | The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that '''Arabs''' are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:59, April 8, 2007
Genocide can refer to the killing of cultural, political, or religious groups too. Thanks. [1] --WOVcenter 01:09, 9 March 2007 (EST)
- I thought that that was referred to as ethnocide. Still, it usually ends up the same, though. Wikinterpreter
- Deleted phrase
- but has yet to take any concrete steps to resolve.
- What is is this supposed to mean, is the US govt supposed to bring vicitms back from the grave in order to "resolve" a genocide? RobS 20:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- Deleted phrase
Word of caution
I would caution against over reliance upon citations to the United Nations as being some sort of authoritve or definitive source on this subject; this may have the unintended consequence of nobody taking an issue of such vital importance as serious at all. RobS 14:02, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Definitions and editorialisation
1. It was not an attempt to define genocide, it was one of mant possible definitions of the term. For others, see Chalk and Johnasson, Kuper, etc. 2. Removed editorialisation re: MSF.They are beyond any doubt a humanitarian group. One may question their politics and their methodology, but that does not make them any less humanitarian.
The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.Jacobin 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
- The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that Arabs are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. Teresita 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)