The Revenge of Ithor

Genocide is the systematic elimination or attempt at systematic elimination of an entire species by unnatural means. Thus:

The Holocast genocide
The Rwandan genocide

In each at least a million died, but because neither was followed through to their final aim of total annihiliation, neither was totally successful. They were attempts at genocide that were successful enogh to merit the term genocide. The mass killing at Srebenica in Bosnia in 1996 of 8000 Muslims was mass murder and a war crime by comparison. This event involving the deaths of 2-3 World Trade Centers as it were.

There is a difference between mass murder and genocide.

As for the Vong, they're all on the rim, where else are they going to be? They've been there fifty years and haven't gone anywhere. Where else have billions of Vong come from? Why are they stretched so thin in their lines? They are all here and they have fatally over-reached their selves.

Jedi Ben

 

The mass killing at Srebenica in Bosnia in 1996 of 8000 Muslims was mass murder and a war crime by comparison

If I remember correctly we call that "ethnic cleansing"

Milosivic is being charged with genocide for that!

 

Ethnic cleansing IS mass murder, I don't care what anyone says.

As for Milosevic, I know he is charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. IF they can prove he created a campaign with the killing of Muslims and Croats, civilian and military, as a key aim then he can be done for genocide. If not, it'll go down as random mass murder undirected by Milosevic, soldiers gone rogue.

I'd love to see the bastard get it though, he's been the main player behind all the trouble in the Balkans for the last decade! Tudjman was also a bastard but Milosevic supersedes him by far.

Jedi Ben

 

I was mearly stating by killing even less then a million one can commit "genocide".

Frick even the Aztecs could be charged with geocide in the year 1 reed, when they masacured over 80000 to ther gods!

As I always say, "Blame the Clinton Administration"

 

That's true 'dude, I tend to hate the term 'ethnic cleansing' with a passion though, as you can tell.

Nice example of the Aztecs, though if there was to be a charge are there are any survivors to tell of the crime? That's the key here. IF the Nazis had had more time, we may not know about the Holocaust, all we'd know is there were lots of rubble piles in Germany. Then a few years later the corpses might have been found, might have led to theories which the Holocaust Denial bunch would spend their sad lives shooting down.

Jedi Ben

p.s. Sorry if it seemed a bit harsh, it was the ethnic cleansing phrase.

 

Yeah right after I posted that it sounded a little wierd, I should have said "so-called ethnic cleansing"

 

For the benefit of the Genocide Discussion:

One successful genocide is Stalin's elimination of the Kulak peasants in Russia in the 1930s. The Kulaks were the only real opposition to Stalin's collectivisation plans. Stalin's solution was to create a famine to destroy the entire class of peasantry by starvation. It worked. A conservative estimate says 10 million died, the true figure could be high as 20 million. No survivors and the world did not care, Stalin got away with it and other crimes.

Jedi Ben

 

When you think like that, you almost wish the Third Riech had taken him out in WWII.

 

First a genocide is when one group cleanse't it's self of another group. That be killing, banashiment, separating group memebers so their race/culture dies out etc... For an example the Assyrains, in 883-627 BC forced 4.5 million to split up (from their tribes and towns) and resettle outside their terratory. They didn't call him, simply removed them, but its still a Genocide. What Canadians and Americans did to the Japanese during World War 2 was also a Genocide. I have no idea where you got that defination of a Genocide because its wrong.

A genocide does not need to be systematic. To be systematic means to be planed out, often times genocides aren't planed out at all. During the Bengladesh Genocide they simple had hunting groups go out and kill and rape people. It was more chaotic then systematic. Same with the Genocide in Africa when the Germans whipped out the Herreros.

 

Can't it only move planets with planetary repulsors...or do i have things backwards?

Miin Bodenna
Co-CEO of Massassi
Defense Department

 

Jaeger, you're wrong; you want to go around throwing around the term 'genocide' all over the place, debasing it's severity and disrespecting the victims of it, fine. You wish to disrespect notions of law, where crimes are defined as X and not whatever anyone likes, fine. Forced expulsion, cultural revolution: both are crimes but are not genocide. In your other examples, forced imprisonment for no offence is wrong and criminal but it isn't genocide; the slaughter of entire towns and tribes is systematic, it is directed: do you think those soldiers truly acted without orders? They did not. An unsystematic chaos is the Terror that followed the French Revolution. All your examples are valid crimes, some very great, but they are not genocides.

MB you are correct.

Calrissian theorised Centerpoint could only move plnets hooked up to the five repuslors, which enable it to extend its reach over the galaxy. Calrissian only said that actually hooking up the six pieces of tech would be highly difficult. Thus this whole scenario is very likely to remain hypothetical.

Jedi Ben

 

Ben, I'm studying genocides, another thing you probaly don't know it that technically you can't call any innocent that happened before 1945 a Genocide (again, a reason for the Holocaust word) because the word was around. Most people (including scollors) ingore this and do it anyway.

Your describing a HOLOGCAUST, not a Genocide. Genocides do not require killing or mass extermination. Many do, not all, and its not needed.

Ben your buying into the common misconeptions of what a Genoicde is. I'll bet you think Hitler and Nazi's always planed to exterminate the Jews, which again isn't true. So please, don't come on here and try to tell me what I know and don't know about the subject I'm one year away from getting a degree in.

 

I'll bet you think Hitler and Nazi's always planed to exterminate the Jews, which again isn't true

True in a way, Hitler needed a scapgoat to blame for the problems after WW2. But he was also a extremliy religiouse man, who happned to be fundemental and saw only Male White germans as eqauls.

 

Oh you are? What you really are studying is History and genocide is your dissertation subject.

As for the technical nature, I could not care less. Wrong is wrong. Here's a description for some of the examples you've used which you would accept: Simple mass, mass murder.

As for Hitler, he always despised the Jews, always wished them gone, it only took time for him to equate that with killing all of them.

Al of this is irrelevant to this thread and I have no interest in pursing a discussion which will only become more bad-tempered as it goes. We won't agree. Accept that as a foregone conclusion. I'm willing to differ but that's all because this thread needs to get back on track.

Jedi Ben

 

Ben your buying into the common misconeptions of what a Genoicde is. I'll bet you think Hitler and Nazi's always planed to exterminate the Jews, which again isn't true. So please, don't come on here and try to tell me what I know and don't know about the subject I'm one year away from getting a degree in.

Sticking up for JediBen...He's really educated in the fields of philosophy, I think his opinion are right, and Genocide is a mass-killing!

Plus I have a PHD is political science and ethics!

 

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
- geno·cid·al /"je-n&-'sI-d&l/ adjective


-From AOLs dictionary...

 

"As for the technical nature, I could not care less. Wrong is wrong. Here's a description for every example you've used which you would accept: Simple mass, mass murder" And in this case your wrong. Genocide is no simply mass murder. Thats what most people who really don't know what ther're talking about think it is, but its not what it is. If you choose to remain ignorant, hey,thats you.

"As for Htler, he always despised the Jews, always wished them gone, it only took time for him to equate that with killing all of them." - Hilter didn't like them, neither did the rest of Germany at that point, Hitler was a smart guy and he knew that if he came out against the Jews he would gain a lot of support. But the final solution was not his grand, master plan. They went threw serveral ways to get rid of the Jewish people, none of which worked. Including trying to get them to all emmigrate, but other countries like Canada, the USA and England set up big red tape obsticals, making it almost impossible for Jews to get out of Germany. The killing only started when they "knew" it was the only way to get what they wanted. One of the most basic examples of proof for this is that the concentraion camps themselves, and the fact tha the concentration and extermination camps where build until 1939 (most were built in 1940 or 41) if Hitler had that great plan for the final solution there would have been preperations made before the time it started.

 

"Sticking up for JediBen...He's really educated in the fields of philosophy, I think his opinion are right, and Genocide is a mass-killing!" Great, so he can go think deep, deep thoughts. But would he go up to Doctor and try to explain how to do surgery? Hes just shown this is a topic he isn't educated on. Genocide is much more then just mass murder, and as I said, doesn't HAVE to include murder at all. That the American and Canadian governments did to the Japanses is considered a Genocide as well. They removed them from the culture, then split them up in an attempt to kill their culture off completely

 

I don't like your tone, I have you know Philosophy is the commen basis for every technological advancement and every thought!

 

"I don't like your tone, I have you know Philosophy is the commen basis for every technological advancement and every thought!"

I've taken some philosophy, its not the basis for every technological advancemnt and every thought. Every thought it not philosophy. Philosophy is when someone thinks about something for the sake of thinking about something, trying to figure out a "truth".

 

Ben I need your help I can't defend myself, hes like a decade older then me!

 

Heh the completely unrelated tangent this thread went off on is hilarious.
I'm just gonna add my two cents, most likely no-one will respond but that's life.

On Sept. 11th.
It's alright to just casually bring up the dropping of two atomic bombs which caused many, many deaths (haven't studied WWII in years so I can't recall figures) and residual effects which plague descendants to this day. It's also quite alright for two childish posters to use the topic of the Holocaust as just a stomping ground for their little hissy fit. I feel I must apologise to any Jewish JCers for the lack of consideration shown by these two!
But anyone mentions September 11th once, just once, and they are attacked by blindly patriotic Americans like grutchins on an X-Wing! Excuse me for noticing, but certain atrocities such as My Lai and Hiroshima strike me as countless times worse than Sept. 11th.

Hmm.. the argument on genocide. As a student of history I find a lot of fellow students, or those who claim to be illuminated on the subject, often bring up tired arguments they've seen in a text book on WWII, or on the recent decades of conflict in the Balkans. They don't understand these arguments themselves, and this becomes quite obvious when with each repetition key words are left out, the argument becomes garbled and incoherent, and the person becomes more defensive. Some even like to drop in handy references to events in history they might have seen in Encarta or on TV. (The French Terror, anyone?)
Now, Jaeger, I see where you're coming from and your viewpoint is correct in some ways. Perhaps your definition of genocide is different to ours (I assume English isn't your first language), but still your idea is sound. Genocide is much more than simple mass murder. It is the systematic extermination of an *entire* national, racial, political, or ethnic group. This could be achieved through the process of a holocaust, through the subjugation of an entire nation and assimilation (take away a nation's independence, assimilate the people into your own system and voila-- cultural genocide). The term extermination used in the definition in dictionaries and history books can be misleading-- while in most of the few circumstances of genocide we have at hand some type of killing spree was involved, this does not always have to be so in the abstract of the genocidal concept.
One final thing which got to me was the debate that the term genocide cannot be used unless the genocide was carried out to its end. That is a kid's argument, people, come on! If it makes it easier for you to understand, then just wrap it around the legal relationship of murder/attempted murder. Genocide/attempted genocide: regardless of closure the intent was there and that's more than enough.

Thanks.

 

I just thought of something. The Aztecs are ALOT like the Vong. If you compare them... They are loyal to their Gods. Tons of Sacrifices. Prisioners were very important. Loved to fight. Odd technology. Then some force from the outside will beat them. Maybe this is the secret conclusion for the NJO...Or not but worth a shot.

 

First off I am Jewish and that "apology" offended me more then anything said in here. First who are you to apologis for anything anyone in here says? Second if you feel the need to insult someone, don't do it behind a half assed apology.

Please tell me who is telling you people that "It is the systematic extermination of an *entire* national, racial, political, or ethnic group" is a defination of Genocide? They don't know what they're talking about. First just about every Genocide in history (that involved killing) hasn't been systematci, tahts what sets the holocaust part. Most genocides just consist of groups of soliders of the home group randomly excuting (or worse) memebers of the out group. Thats not systematic. If anything you should be apologing for de-valuing that happened during the Holocaust. Second GENOCIDES DO NOT NEED TO INVOLVE KILLING (this isn't to you Xan). Please, accept this fact. You should also be apoligising to people like Japanses Americans and Canadians for de-grading what they went through as not a Genocide. Third one of (if not THE) biggest problem with the defination of Genocide is that excludes many groups from it, political groups are part of that, they are not included in the defination of Genocide. Fouth the biggest problem with identifying when a Genocide has occuried is getting the guilty group to admit it, they have to accept the law before it can be wrong. Its easy to point fingers to say "they did, and they did it" but very few (I'll use Americans and Canadians as an example) would admit to commiting not one, but TWO Genocides as well as aiding in the Holocaust.

"Then some force from the outside will beat them" - That difference is the Aztics didn't attack the Spanish.

 

Black_Hole, dont bet on patning that theory bub, I already made it, it didnt go so well...