Genocide

[watsup]

I don't seek nor require you endorsements, that you feel I somehow do reflects badly on you imo

Virtually everytime you speak of crimes and violence you have official US state enemies in the cross hairs. Nothing about the gross war crimes of the US nor the often genocidal attacks it has waged against other people/states nor any mentions of their support for other criminals whose crimes they have also enabled. No Pinochet, no Contras, no Vietnam/Loas./Cambodia genocidal bombing condemnations. No comments on how the US helped Saddam at the time he was gassing Kurds and Iranians etc etc only the Putins, Milosevic's, Stalins etc etc

Hardly any here have supported your pov regarding a " genocide" and the reason is , imo, that they are more objective on this than you are.

BTW I don't even pretend to be unbiased in my treatment of the US, I wear my heart on my sleeve and suffer the cosequences. You? Bias attempted to be dressed as objective analysis. I prefer a candid approach and accept the human traits I have inherited. I leave those who try to present themselves as superhuman to hang themselves

Whataboutism.

 

[NWRatCon]

Well, to cut thing short, I already addressed my possible bias perhaps blemishing my definition of the term in face of how the Genocide Convention or Statute of Rome defines.

Which I respect.

The suffix "cide" as in genocide implicates killing. In fratricide that would be of a brother or brothers, not to forget sister(s), patricide a parent or both and in homicide just about anybody and in all those cases both killing (murder) and its subject are clearly defined. So at peril of being seen as nit-pickingly more popely than the pope, I'll insist on that precision being adhered to.

That is a reasonable take, frankly, since "cide" is in the name. Perhaps a better phrase or name could be coined. Certainly the conception has expanded since its inception.

Conspiring and inciting for the act are near enough to actual killing/murder so as to be virtually part of it. One can't cop out of that on the principle of "well, if and when we see bodies lying around, we'll know whose door bell to ring."

Well said.

What nevertheless remains missing is proof that the Kremlin and its henchmen are hell-bent on wiping out the whole Ukrainian nation, be that by standards of nationality or any other that serves to define Ukrainians.

Here I take exception to the assertion. There is extensive evidence, on the record, regarding Putin's intent. He's been making similar assertions for more than a decade. It was the inspiration for his attacks on Crimea and the Donbas, Georgia and Moldova as well. He considers the land all part of "Mother Russia" and all the residents thereof who are not sufficiently "Russian" as interlopers and not worthy of consideration. He's expressed those sentiments quite strongly.

"The Kremlin has long used so-called “frozen conflicts” to extend its reach beyond Russian borders. For the past three decades, it has backed a pro-Russian regime in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transnistria. In 2008, it launched a conventional invasion of Georgia in support of separatist governments in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two provinces with large Russian-speaking populations. Six years later, Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine and began supporting an insurgency of pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas." Moldova, then Georgia, now Ukraine: How Russia built ‘bridgeheads into post-Soviet space’ (France 24) Those are the specific actions, but the justifications are really the critical point, here. Why is Putin attacking Ukraine? He told us. (Vox) "He believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian: “Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood,” as he puts it."

Putin’s basic claim — that there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty — is demonstrably false. However, this does not mean Putin is lying: In fact, Russia experts generally saw his speech as an expression of his real beliefs.

The speech is consistent with a body of statements from the Russian president going back years, ranging from a 5,000-word essay on Ukrainian history published last year to a 2005 speech declaring that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster [in which] tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory.”

Continued....

 

[NWRatCon]

In reality, these countries have longstanding ethnonational identities distinct from Russia. But Putin does not accept this, treating the former Soviet republics — and, above all, Ukraine — as parts of Russia stolen from the motherland as a result of communist machinations.

“Radicals and nationalists, including and primarily those in Ukraine, are taking credit for having gained independence. As we can see, this is absolutely wrong,” he says. “The disintegration of our united country was brought about by the historic, strategic mistakes on the part of Bolshevik and Soviet leaders ... the collapse of the historical Russia known as the USSR is on their conscience.”

If this sounds remarkably like Hitler's justifications for taking the Sudetenland, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, this is not a coincidence.

It's important to remember, when reading Putin's version of Russian history that the Russian Empire, unlike its European counterparts, did not approach its expansion and acquisition of territory as "colonization" but "annexation" - explicitly. "Russification" was a policy of both the Tsars and Soviets. "In a historical sense, the term refers to both official and unofficial policies of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union with respect to their national constituents and to national minorities in Russia, aimed at Russian domination and hegemony."

The cited Wikipedia article shows how the process was implemented in many of the lands that are now seeking, or have obtained, NATO membership. It often involves the deportation of resistant populations and their replacement with Russians, as in Crimea, Ukraine, the Caucuses and Kazak regions. "Before and during World War II, Joseph Stalin deported to Central Asia and Siberia several entire nationalities for their suspected collaboration with the German invaders: Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, and others. Shortly after the war, he deported many Ukrainians, Balts and Estonians to Siberia as well."

Putin has explicitly and fervently justified and even expanded these policies. "In 2020, a set of amendments to the Russian constitution was approved by the State Duma and later the Federation Council. One of the amendments is to enshrine Russian as the “language of the state-forming nationality” and the Russian people as the ethnic group that created the nation."

It is important to understand these justifications in terms of his external actions as well. Because, well, he doesn't consider them "external".

 

[Chagos]

Which I respect.

That is a reasonable take, frankly, since "cide" is in the name. Perhaps a better phrase or name could be coined. Certainly the conception has expanded since its inception.

Well said.

Here I take exception to the assertion. ...........................~

Truncating your post as per above does not mean taking anything away from what it says in total (nor from the follow-up post).

I simply want to address what I've bolded above.

In that, in my perception, there is a tendency these days to throw an established term around with such abandon, that it eventually becomes removed from the initial "establishment". That international conventions and statutes participate in this behaviour by expanding a given conception takes nothing from my unease over any of it.

Of course language continues to develop all the time and thus words/terms cannot be expected to be exempt from this development, nevertheless I see an unhealthy lack of caution in "re-definitions" and not just with regard to the term here (genocide).

In the spirit of said "re-definitions" all of what you let follow in your above post (as well as in the subsequent one) indeed makes for a case of genocide, yet I'll persist in my take on the matter that such re-definitions, no matter how respected and otherwise qualified the bodies making them, do not convince me.

To me it is the understandable but nevertheless futile attempt to include a situation not as clear cut as the holocaust or the Rwanda catastrophe into a term which pretty much always addressed "black or white" and now has been designed to take at least the white out of what I'd call grey (even if it's very dark grey).

That takes nothing from the fact that the Kremlin mob is committing atrocities in Ukraine or causing them to be committed, all of them substituting war crimes.

 

[PeteEU]

Given the definitions in the OP, is the Russian operation in Ukraine genocidal? I submit that it is.

Putin, in several speeches, going back decades, has denied Ukrainian identity culturally and politically, and Ukraine as a separate entity. He has denigrated Russian speakers who support its independence as "race traitors."

The campaign has explicitly targeted specifically civilian targets, shelters, housing and medical facilities. These tactics are directed at "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

As the UN Office notes, "Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”"

Again, I submit, this condition is met. From a legal standpoint, the central question is intent. Again, the UN's description is instructive:

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1. A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
2. A physical element, which includes the following five acts (listed earlier).

By your definition, the US committed genocide in Iraq and other wars of invasion. The US targeted a "group" called the Iraqi people and even "sub-groups" in Shia or Sunni religious groups. It bombed civilian areas indiscriminately and committed numerous war crimes (road of death comes to mind) and used illegal weapons like cluster bombs. Doubt you agree with me on this.. but the US invasions of Iraq x 2 and Afghanistan would fit the definition as well.

The problem with the Genocide Convention is the "in part" part.. That basically means you can claim any conflict where a group is attacked is in fact a group being targeted, and hence it is genocide.

That is exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. Fact is, the Ukrainian propaganda machine has managed to use the term Genocide enough that we are now debating if it is genocide. They claim that the Russians are specifically targeting Ukrainian people... well duh, the Russians invaded another country and you defacto "target" said countries people no? Their evidence is some what questionable attacks on civilian infrastructure.. but hello that happens in war. War is dirty, war is painful. Civilians get caught in the middle... that is the fact of war. Fact is quite a large number of the people being caught in the middle are in fact Russians..

The key factor of genocide should always be that if someone is targeting a group and does everything in their power to wipe said group off the face of the earth.. either via mass murder or forced expulsion. That is what happened with the Nazi regime. They targeted Jews (a group), homosexuals (a group), Romani (a group) and others for extermination. Their goal was to get rid of EVERYONE in said groups. That is certainly not happening in Ukraine.

What Russia is doing in Ukraine is war... "good" old fashioned war.

 

[snakestretcher]

Murdering civilians on the street; killing a pregnant woman and her baby; slaying a man waiting to get some bread.

Yes, sir/ma'am!

That is genocide.

The savage responsible for all of this must get his comeuppance!

And we in the smug and self-righteous West haven't done exactly that in the recent past? When you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.

 

[Rogue Valley]

And we in the smug and self-righteous West haven't done exactly that in the recent past? When you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.

You're rapidly morphing into either an apologist for the Russian government/military, or an anti-West crusader.

 

[NWRatCon]

By your definition, the US committed genocide in Iraq and other wars of invasion. The US targeted a "group" called the Iraqi people and even "sub-groups" in Shia or Sunni religious groups. It bombed civilian areas indiscriminately and committed numerous war crimes (road of death comes to mind) and used illegal weapons like cluster bombs. Doubt you agree with me on this.. but the US invasions of Iraq x 2 and Afghanistan would fit the definition as well.

You are correct that I vehemently disagree with you on this. With respect, those descriptions are grossly inaccurate for a variety of reasons which will some take time and a lot of words to accurately refute in detail. I can agree that tragedies occurred - some monumentally stupid - -that there were war crimes and that the invasion of Iraq was justified on inaccurate information. I strongly opposed both its initiation and its prosecution at the time (although I was not on this forum at that time). Afghanistan was an entirely different matter.

The problem with the Genocide Convention is the "in part" part.. That basically means you can claim any conflict where a group is attacked is in fact a group being targeted, and hence it is genocide.

I agree it is problematic, but it is far more nuanced and distinguishable as a legal matter.

That is exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. Fact is, the Ukrainian propaganda machine has managed to use the term Genocide enough that we are now debating if it is genocide. They claim that the Russians are specifically targeting Ukrainian people... well duh, the Russians invaded another country and you defacto "target" said countries people no?

Emphatically no. Expressly no. This is, frankly, a gross mischaracterization of the law. That is the problem with broad-brush generalizations as argumentation. But also, frankly, the very reason for this thread - to tease out these distinctions.

Their evidence is some what questionable attacks on civilian infrastructure.. but hello that happens in war. War is dirty, war is painful. Civilians get caught in the middle... that is the fact of war. Fact is quite a large number of the people being caught in the middle are in fact Russians..

Again, your broad brush is glossing over the very fundamentals of International Humanitarian Law and effectively excusing some extremely reprehensible and clearly illegal behavior. I don't think that is your intent - I expect quite the opposite - but that is the effect. By minimizing the distinctions, even with good intentions (anti-war sentiments) the result is to endorse atrocity.

Let me put it this way: are there legal distinctions between reckless behavior and deliberate behavior? Do we not treat negligent homicide differently from reckless homicide, and substantially differently from premeditated murder? And, more importantly, are those distinctions justified, notwithstanding that the victim is dead in each circumstance? That is precisely the nuance that is being addressed here.

The key factor of genocide should always be that if someone is targeting a group and does everything in their power to wipe said group off the face of the earth.. either via mass murder or forced expulsion. That is what happened with the Nazi regime. They targeted Jews (a group), homosexuals (a group), Romani (a group) and others for extermination. Their goal was to get rid of EVERYONE in said groups. That is certainly not happening in Ukraine.

I disagree. You are so missing the point.

What Russia is doing in Ukraine is war... "good" old fashioned war.

You are so very, very wrong. And I will clarify why.

 

[NWRatCon]

Truncating your post as per above does not mean taking anything away from what it says in total (nor from the follow-up post).

I simply want to address what I've bolded above.

In that, in my perception, there is a tendency these days to throw an established term around with such abandon, that it eventually becomes removed from the initial "establishment". That international conventions and statutes participate in this behaviour by expanding a given conception takes nothing from my unease over any of it.

I appreciate that.

Of course language continues to develop all the time and thus words/terms cannot be expected to be exempt from this development, nevertheless I see an unhealthy lack of caution in "re-definitions" and not just with regard to the term here (genocide).

In the spirit of said "re-definitions" all of what you let follow in your above post (as well as in the subsequent one) indeed makes for a case of genocide, yet I'll persist in my take on the matter that such re-definitions, no matter how respected and otherwise qualified the bodies making them, do not convince me.

To me it is the understandable but nevertheless futile attempt to include a situation not as clear cut as the holocaust or the Rwanda catastrophe into a term which pretty much always addressed "black or white" and now has been designed to take at least the white out of what I'd call grey (even if it's very dark grey).

That takes nothing from the fact that the Kremlin mob is committing atrocities in Ukraine or causing them to be committed, all of them substituting war crimes.

I do not dispute your take at all. But, alas, I'm stuck with the language that was chosen.

Genocide, conceptually, is a "hate crime" as that concept has been developed in the law - it is addressed at the motivation of the actor for his/her actions. It, therefore, suffers from the same limitations as other hate crime laws. As a society we are identifying particular motivations as particularly heinous, and worthy of special condemnation. In criminal law (which this is) we frequently make such distinctions (as noted in my last post).

There are legitimate philosophical and even practical reasons for making such distinctions. We are opining as a society about who we are, and what we stand for and against. Moreover, some motivations are particularly pernicious and infectious. Hate is one of those.

Voltaire coined the aphorism "When one can convince you of an absurdity, they can motivate you to commit atrocities." (There are various translations from the French.) This is that conception written into international law.

We condemn those who "incite" riots, because their persuasion is particularly dangerous to society. So too, here, those who are motivated by particular hate are more likely to engage in condemned behavior. We have seen this, historically, in action - from WWII to Rwanda and Serbia. I grant that the actions condemned have broadened beyond just murder. We have come to realize as an international community that there are other crimes that can be as devastating to society as murder. So we have named them, and condemned them.

The wording of our condemnation may be imprecise, but the principle is what is important.

 

[NWRatCon]

I've been cogitating over friend Chagos concerns over the use of the term genocide. I now have a different take. I think the term is both appropriate and applicable. Here's why:

The suffix "-cide", is used

1. denoting a person or substance that kills.
   "insecticide"
2. denoting an act of killing.
   "suicide"

We typically use it as applied to a person or "thing" (insecticide, fungicide). Killing a person - homicide - is concrete and specific. But the term is not limited to individuals. Other uses of the term are more broadly applicable, to a class of organisms (insects, fungi, bacteria). In this instance we are applying -cide to a class of people. More specifically, a nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, and here, particularly, to a nationality.

Conceptually, the actions described are aimed at eliminating a characteristic of the class, which can be accomplished through means other than murder (although that is also occurring). One can eliminate a religion by force conversion, an ethnicity by assimilation, or a nationality by relocation or subjugation. The entity, or class, ceases to exist, which is, effectively, dead. All of these are identified as methods of genocide in the Treaty and statute (the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe).

So, I conclude that the term is appropriate, and is applicable to the current situation where the purpose, as explicitly expressed by Putin himself, is to exterminate the concept of a "Ukrainian nationality". All of his war actions are directed at that end, as are the specific atrocities, thus, genocide.

 

[PeteEU]

You are correct that I vehemently disagree with you on this. With respect, those descriptions are grossly inaccurate for a variety of reasons which will some take time and a lot of words to accurately refute in detail. I can agree that tragedies occurred - some monumentally stupid - -that there were war crimes and that the invasion of Iraq was justified on inaccurate information. I strongly opposed both its initiation and its prosecution at the time (although I was not on this forum at that time). Afghanistan was an entirely different matter.

There were multiple war crimes committed by US and Coalition forces in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan. The bombing of Baghdad, where civilian areas were targeted is by todays Ukraine, defined as a war crime and genocide. The excuse was of course that the Iraqi army had set troops or material in the area, but for some reason the west dont believe the Russians when they claim the same. The US lead coalition literally stopped slaughtering fleeing Iraqi troops and civilians on the road of death because they were afraid of being accused of nasty things.

I agree it is problematic, but it is far more nuanced and distinguishable as a legal matter.

No it aint. The convention does not have much legal bearing ... if any at all. It has been ignored so many times the last 60 years, that it is basically null and void. It is used in political mudslinging more than anything else.. and yes that is very very sad and wrong, but a fact.

Emphatically no. Expressly no. This is, frankly, a gross mischaracterization of the law. That is the problem with broad-brush generalizations as argumentation. But also, frankly, the very reason for this thread - to tease out these distinctions.

Again, your broad brush is glossing over the very fundamentals of International Humanitarian Law and effectively excusing some extremely reprehensible and clearly illegal behavior. I don't think that is your intent - I expect quite the opposite - but that is the effect. By minimizing the distinctions, even with good intentions (anti-war sentiments) the result is to endorse atrocity.

I am not using any broad bush.. I am using the "equal under the law" principle, and that is where this convention falls flat on its face. The accusation of genocide is more than often used against "enemies" of the west, and not allies of the west or the west it self. If we can not use the convention against us self or our friends, then what gives us the right to use it against our enemies?

Let me put it this way: are there legal distinctions between reckless behavior and deliberate behavior? Do we not treat negligent homicide differently from reckless homicide, and substantially differently from premeditated murder? And, more importantly, are those distinctions justified, notwithstanding that the victim is dead in each circumstance? That is precisely the nuance that is being addressed here.

Those distinctions are highly subjective. Take Israels shelling of the Gaza strip. Was that reckless (and hence excusable) or deliberate (and a war crime)? But regardless of it being reckless or deliberate attacks in Ukraine, it does not mean it is genocide.

I disagree. You are so missing the point.

You are so very, very wrong. And I will clarify why.

That you have 24/7 coverage and a highly biased media does not change the fact that it is just a war... not an action of extermination. I understand the urge to be pro Ukraine and anti Russia in this conflict, but when people start using the word genocide to garner political points in the media, that is where they have gone too far.

 

[snakestretcher]

You're rapidly morphing into either an apologist for the Russian government/military, or an anti-West crusader.

Nope, just stating facts. Nobody's hands are clean in time of war, and historical precedent advises us that nobody can claim moral superiority either, however noble the cause might be. For example, following the Malmedy massacre of unarmed US POW by SS troops of Kampfgruppe Peiper, this happened...

Take no prisoners - Reveal

During WWII, top military commanders hoped to conceal an American war crime. This is the story of an incident nearly lost to history.

revealnews.org

 

[NWRatCon]

I've been cogitating over friend Chagos concerns over the use of the term genocide. I now have a different take. I think the term is both appropriate and applicable. ....
So, I conclude that the term is appropriate, and is applicable to the current situation where the purpose, as explicitly expressed by Putin himself, is to exterminate the concept of a "Ukrainian nationality". All of his war actions are directed at that end, as are the specific atrocities, thus, genocide.

This analysis also refutes the overbroad application of the term as used by friends PeteEU, OneWorld2 and others. In few of those circumstances was the aim to eliminate "a nationality, race, ethnicity or religion", nor was that the effect.

Iraq, for example, is still an independent nation, with ethnic diversity, many religions, and a variety of "races". None were ever the specific target of coalition policies. I would apply that to the other conflicts - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia - offered as examples, and they are thus distinguished.

I would acknowledge that in the distant past that distinction would not apply - until the 1930s the United States pursued a policy of assimilation of native tribes that included atrocities meeting the definition of genocide - but that has not been the case in any modern war the US has engaged in for over a century. Those examples, however, long predate the coining of the term or its adoption into international law.

 

[watsup]

Nope, just stating facts. Nobody's hands are clean in time of war, and historical precedent advises us that nobody can claim moral superiority either, however noble the cause might be. For example, following the Malmedy massacre of US POW by SS troops of Kampfgruppe Peiper, this happened...

Take no prisoners - Reveal

During WWII, top military commanders hoped to conceal an American war crime. This is the story of an incident nearly lost to history.

revealnews.org

Quite wrong. At the present time, it is quite easy to claim moral superiority over the killing and destruction in Ukraine as a reuniting of the invasion by the evil murderous thug Putin. Period.

 

[snakestretcher]

Quite wrong. At the present time, it is quite easy to claim moral superiority over the killing and destruction in Ukraine as a reuniting of the invasion by the evil murderous thug Putin. Period.

Did you feel the same when the US was indiscriminately bombing the shit out of Baghdad in that illegal war?

 

[watsup]

Did you feel the same when the US was indiscriminately bombing the shit out of Baghdad in that illegal war?

Yes. Now what? More whataboutism and ancient history from you?

 

[snakestretcher]

Yes. Now what? More whataboutism and ancient history from you?

Hardly "ancient history" old chum, when cluster munitions dropped in 2011 are still maiming and killing Iraqi civilians in 2022.

Cluster Munition Monitor 2021 - World

Analysis in English on World and 14 other countries about Mine Action and Protection and Human Rights; published on 15 Sep 2021 by CMC and ICBL

reliefweb.int

 

[watsup]

Hardly "ancient history" old chum, when cluster munitions dropped in 2011 are still maiming and killing Iraqi civilians in 2022.

Cluster Munition Monitor 2021 - World

Analysis in English on World and 14 other countries about Mine Action and Protection and Human Rights; published on 15 Sep 2021 by CMC and ICBL

reliefweb.int

What about the cluster munitions that are killing Ukrainians RIGHT NOW as ordered by the evil murderous thug
Putin. Does that bother you at all?

 

[NWRatCon]

I feel the need to emphatically reiterate, that this is not a thread about "War Crimes", but specifically Genocide. I started a thread explicitly about War Crimes here (it is in the Loft, so be mindful of your approach). So the comments that follow are not germane to the topic:

There were multiple war crimes committed by US and Coalition forces in both Iraq wars and in Afghanistan. The bombing of Baghdad, where civilian areas were targeted is by todays Ukraine, defined as a war crime and genocide. The excuse was of course that the Iraqi army had set troops or material in the area, but for some reason the west dont believe the Russians when they claim the same. The US lead coalition literally stopped slaughtering fleeing Iraqi troops and civilians on the road of death because they were afraid of being accused of nasty things.

The level of misstatement here is so profound as to be incapable of response. I was actively involved in targeting analysis during both campaigns (although not in theater in either instance), as I was teaching the principles of the Law of War/Rule of Engagement/International Humanitarian Law in the military to those that were deploying. I recognize that my perspective is very different, and specific, because I am steeped in this stuff, but yes YOU ARE VERY MUCH BROADBRUSHING EVERYTHING. It's like the proverbial Gish Gallup, there are so many inaccuracies as to be difficult to corral.

Nonetheless, you have wandered so far from the topic, I cannot legitimately detail those errors without compounding the errors. So, I will simply leave it at that.

 

[Fledermaus]

By your definition, the US committed genocide in Iraq and other wars of invasion. The US targeted a "group" called the Iraqi people and even "sub-groups" in Shia or Sunni religious groups. It bombed civilian areas indiscriminately and committed numerous war crimes (road of death comes to mind) and used illegal weapons like cluster bombs. Doubt you agree with me on this.. but the US invasions of Iraq x 2 and Afghanistan would fit the definition as well.

The problem with the Genocide Convention is the "in part" part.. That basically means you can claim any conflict where a group is attacked is in fact a group being targeted, and hence it is genocide.

That is exactly what is happening in Ukraine now. Fact is, the Ukrainian propaganda machine has managed to use the term Genocide enough that we are now debating if it is genocide. They claim that the Russians are specifically targeting Ukrainian people... well duh, the Russians invaded another country and you defacto "target" said countries people no? Their evidence is some what questionable attacks on civilian infrastructure.. but hello that happens in war. War is dirty, war is painful. Civilians get caught in the middle... that is the fact of war. Fact is quite a large number of the people being caught in the middle are in fact Russians..

The key factor of genocide should always be that if someone is targeting a group and does everything in their power to wipe said group off the face of the earth.. either via mass murder or forced expulsion. That is what happened with the Nazi regime. They targeted Jews (a group), homosexuals (a group), Romani (a group) and others for extermination. Their goal was to get rid of EVERYONE in said groups. That is certainly not happening in Ukraine.

What Russia is doing in Ukraine is war... "good" old fashioned war.

Where did we "bomb civilian areas indiscriminately"?

And "illegal weapons" like cluster bombs?

Really?

Since when are they "illegal"?

And the "road of death" a "war crime"?

Interesting. Killing enemy combatants is now a war crime.

 

[NWRatCon]

Those distinctions are highly subjective.

No, they are not. They are explicitly the point of this thread.

 

[Fledermaus]

Did you feel the same when the US was indiscriminately bombing the shit out of Baghdad in that illegal war?

Define "indiscriminately".

The US carpet bombed Iraqi forces. Not Baghdad.

 

[Chagos]

This analysis also refutes the overbroad application of the term as used by friends PeteEU, OneWorld2 and others. In few of those circumstances was the aim to eliminate "a nationality, race, ethnicity or religion", nor was that the effect.

Iraq, for example, is still an independent nation, with ethnic diversity, many religions, and a variety of "races". None were ever the specific target of coalition policies. I would apply that to the other conflicts - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia - offered as examples, and they are thus distinguished.

I would acknowledge that in the distant past that distinction would not apply - until the 1930s the United States pursued a policy of assimilation of native tribes that included atrocities meeting the definition of genocide - but that has not been the case in any modern war the US has engaged in for over a century. Those examples, however, long predate the coining of the term or its adoption into international law.

Yes, I was going to address the fallacy of some having applied the term genocide to those countries that I have marked in red and underlined above, but didn't want to add to the favourite pastime here (with some) of drowning everything in tu quoques.

 

[Chagos]

I've been cogitating over friend Chagos concerns over the use of the term genocide. I now have a different take. I think the term is both appropriate and applicable. Here's why:

The suffix "-cide", is used

1. denoting a person or substance that kills.
   "insecticide"
2. denoting an act of killing.
   "suicide"

We typically use it as applied to a person or "thing" (insecticide, fungicide). Killing a person - homicide - is concrete and specific. But the term is not limited to individuals. Other uses of the term are more broadly applicable, to a class of organisms (insects, fungi, bacteria). In this instance we are applying -cide to a class of people. More specifically, a nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, and here, particularly, to a nationality.

Conceptually, the actions described are aimed at eliminating a characteristic of the class, which can be accomplished through means other than murder (although that is also occurring). One can eliminate a religion by force conversion, an ethnicity by assimilation, or a nationality by relocation or subjugation. The entity, or class, ceases to exist, which is, effectively, dead. All of these are identified as methods of genocide in the Treaty and statute (the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe).

So, I conclude that the term is appropriate, and is applicable to the current situation where the purpose, as explicitly expressed by Putin himself, is to exterminate the concept of a "Ukrainian nationality". All of his war actions are directed at that end, as are the specific atrocities, thus, genocide.

and this (bolded by me) is where our paths, while still leading in the same general direction of condemnation of the actions outlined, diverge.

Because by the examples you cite, the forced conversion of the Jews of Spain under the rule of the Catholic majesties, would thus have been genocide. Even where the whole affair lies so far back in history that today's "coining" of the term can hardly apply even then, most certainly not retroactively.

Nevertheless the action, despicable as I see it as having been, did not (and does not) compare to physical destruction of the whole people in question. On the contrary, those not wishing to convert were "encouraged" to get out, even if that meant at the expense of the livelihood (existence) they had until then enjoyed.

And that brings me back to the holocaust, where, when initial desires to expel the "unpalatables" failed in face of international logistics, the "problem" was addressed by wishing to exterminate them all, and putting that desire into practice.

Were I'm concerned it is an insult to the victims of the camps and, more so, to their relatives of today (as well as those actually fortunate enough to survive that onslaught) to dilute the term "genocide" in the manner nowadays seen. This take of mine is not personally directed against those bodies now expanding the concept, nor is it directed against you. But I direct it against the fashionable clumsiness of calling something else the same as what it is actually not. IOW the powers that be can codify it into whatever law they see fit, I won't buy it.

But I can live with "differing" and certainly will.

 

[NWRatCon]

and this (bolded by me) is where our paths, while still leading in the same general direction of condemnation of the actions outlined, diverge.

Understood.

Because by the examples you cite, the forced conversion of the Jews of Spain under the rule of the Catholic majesties, would thus have been genocide.

I concur.

Even where the whole affair lies so far back in history that today's "coining" of the term can hardly apply even then, most certainly not retroactively.

Agreed.

Nevertheless the action, despicable as I see it as having been, did not (and does not) compare to physical destruction of the whole people in question.

Again, we are in accord.

On the contrary, those not wishing to convert were "encouraged" to get out, even if that meant at the expense of the livelihood (existence) they had until then enjoyed.

While I would quibble, for the reasons stated, I appreciate the specific points you are making, and that they are germane to the topic.

And that brings me back to the holocaust, where, when initial desires to expel the "unpalatables" failed in face of international logistics, the "problem" was addressed by wishing to exterminate them all, and putting that desire into practice.

Where I'm concerned it is an insult to the victims of the camps and, more so, to their relatives of today (as well as those actually fortunate enough to survive that onslaught) to dilute the term "genocide" in the manner nowadays seen. This take of mine is not personally directed against those bodies now expanding the concept, nor is it directed against you. But I direct it against the fashionable clumsiness of calling something else the same as what it is actually not. IOW the powers that be can codify it into whatever law they see fit, I won't buy it.

But I can live with "differing" and certainly will.

I appreciate all of that. I am perhaps persnickety about it because, being a lawyer, that is my mindset. I started this thread for a specific discussion about a specific topic and I very much value your sticking to that topic and making comments that are specific to it. I thank you.