Lets start from the basics.
What constitutes a genocide?
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
On December 9, 1948, in the shadow of the Holocaust and in no small part due to the tireless efforts of Lemkin himself, the United Nations approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This convention establishes "genocide" as an international crime, which signatory nations "undertake to prevent and punish." It defines genocide as:
[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
So the first post of the thread - which should form the basis of an intelligent discussion is flawed.
Biggest proponents for Muslim genocides are Chinese ... Chinese being the worst of it. Look at their support, and I'm not speaking in spirit, but rather monetary support of Sudan. Here is Syria where Muslims are being killed in ways where people there and its neighbors are calling it a " a massacre, slaughter etc" .
Higher than mountains deeper than seas-- but when it comes to genocidal maniacs, no Muslims are to be free!
Chinese want to get rid of Uighur separatists, not Muslims. It is a coincidence that these rebels are Muslims. Make no mistake - if it was a Chinese Buddhist or whatever group, they would still face the same situation.
In Syria, the people being targeted are political protestors, some of them armed guerrillas who are hiding within civilians.
How does these 2 scenarios qualify as a genocide?
Get your facts straight - the entire premise of this thread is flawed.
and thats what you call genocide supporting, that's how you qualify it ( sent ships but did not do jack with it). in that case India is one, they pushed for no action on Libya, Lord knows thats what they want in syria too, It continues and did so in the past by helping Tamil genocide in sri lanka...
there you go , my examples trumps yours..
Sorry to say that your knowledge of history is not worth spending time, but I will still try.
Read this entire page and its linked documents and you will get a hint.
The Tilt: The U.S. and the South Asian Crisis of 1971
And in the same time he made Chile one of the best prospering countries in South America... besides who cares about socialists, they killed more humans than Pinochet was ever capabale. Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Castro, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Ill, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung etc. etc. etc. These guys are way above any level of killing made by Pinochet or even medieval or ancient kings, emperors etc. Think about that.
They were dictators, tyrants - they were responsible for mass murders - not for genocides. Targeted killing of political opponents does not classify as "genocide".
JAy ATL knows that Rwanda was a stain on the US not because it PROMPTED IT! Did India by not interfering on Sudan " PROMOTE" it? Maybe you forget the premise of the claim " US Promotes genocide"
Pssst- there was a genocide of tamils to the south of india by a piss poor country who had no militray power to take on India. Tell us why india PROMPTED genocide of a people that had a closer bloodline to itself ( citizenry) than Rwanda had to americans?
You twisted Daredevils words, he said US ignored it - not promote it.
On the Tamil issue, I would suggest you do some deeper research and not just rely on news media.
AND BTW I refuse to debate with people anymore who are stupid enough, military strategy defunct to think a freaking carrier with 40 aircrafts = military plan to invade and or nuke India. You should get off defense board if you are that naïve when it comes to the simple tactical knowledge / matter as this.
Do you know that the US military planned to respond by any means necessary (and that includes nukes) in response to sinking of a carrier, even with conventional methods?
Secondly, the carrier wasn't there to invade, it was to dissuade India. And to militarily intervene, one CVBG is enough. If required, you had Diego Garcia with loaded B-52 bombers.
Agreed. But Govt & its appointed individuals represent the nation as whole. There is no denying fact about the picture that Govt paints for its nation or its citizens.
This does not make the nation as a whole responsible for his deeds. Saddam Hussein (Ba'ath Party) was first elected democratically. So was Hitler.
Doesn't make the general populace responsible and accountable for their actions. They were his actions, not Iraq's.
Though the people in question may have had their supporters, let us not confuse individuals with national identities.
US promoted genocide. Any attempt to lecturing the world on genocide by US means fuckall.
Dumb. By your logic, entire Germany and germans should never speak out against or help in preventing genocide.
The U.S. themselves are the greatest perpetrators of genocide in the past two hundred years. There really should be a separate thread on that; I think I'll start one when I get the time.
Whenever I think of US war, 1st thing that comes to my mind is Vietnam war. 1 Million died with biggest ever bombarding/Genocide. US is biggest threat for this world (after Islamic extremist)
More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than by all sides in WWII. It was the most devastated country in modern military history.
WMD - yes. No concern for civilian casualties - Yes.
Genocide - No.
OP started the thread " America and its response to genocides " But he forgot that US is one of the biggest supporter of Genocide.
Thread title is hilarious.
May be he is more American than Indo-American ?
Troll post. No value added to the thread or discussion or even humor anyone.
