Less,Then you whine and whine about the definition of Genocide without providing even a definition that you find acceptable. Fine, let me put in a definition that I find acceptable.
Genocide is the systematic elimination of a culture, civilization, race, or people group from a nation or large geographical region. Intent and feelings aren't sufficient, but capability and grand conspiracy would be.
It's important to note that if said culture, civilization, race, or people group would have died off or been significantly reduced anyway, with or without the help of the aggressors, then it's hard to prove genocide. Likewise, if the results of asymmetrical warfare are heavily one-sided, that doesn't prove genocide, either. Coincidence does not lead to causation.
But if you have a grand conspiracy to eliminate these people and you carry it out with sufficient efficiency and brutality, that is clearly genocide in my book. Anything between that and your standard of "mere intent" is a gray area that I would not be so quick to apply the "genocide" label to.
By the way, if you want to continue making incorrect assumptions about my motivations and characterizing my position as "whining," then our conversation is over ... jackass.
Tenchusatsu |
