Controversial General Political Discussion

Roo

Roo

‎
#25,287
#25,287
Genocides are widely debated topics, it's not as simple as "X killed a bunch of innocent people".

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people[a] in whole or in part. In 1948, the United Nations Genocide Convention defined genocide as any of five "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". These five acts were: killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children out of the group. Victims are targeted because of their real or perceived membership of a group, not randomly.[
Click to expand...
I think often the main point of contention is intent

Intent
Under international law, genocide has two mental (mens rea) elements: the general mental element and the element of specific intent (dolus specialis). The general element refers to whether the prohibited acts were committed with intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. For most serious international crimes, including genocide, the requirement is that the perpetrator act with intent. The Rome Statute defines intent as meaning to engage in the conduct and, in relation to consequences, as meaning to cause that consequence or being "aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events".[57]

The specific intent element defines the purpose of committing the acts: "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". The specific intent is a core factor distinguishing genocide from other international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
"Intent to destroy"
Main article: Genocidal intent
In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that, in 1992, the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group, and that this was still the majority opinion. But the ECHR also noted that a minority took a broader view, and did not consider biological-physical destruction to be necessary, as the intent to destroy a national, racial, religious or ethnic group as a social unit was enough to qualify as genocide
Click to expand...
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been subject to much discussion by scholars of international humanitarian law.[61] In the Ruhashyankiko report of the United Nations it was once argued that the killing of only a single individual could be genocide if the intent to destroy the wider group was found in the murder,[62] yet official court rulings have since contradicted this. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia found in Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Trial Chamber I – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001)[63] that Genocide had been committed. In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic – Appeals Chamber – Judgment – IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[64] paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges continue in paragraph 12, "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."[65][66]

In paragraph 13 the judges raise the issue of the perpetrators' access to the victims: "The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators' activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered. ... The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him. While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can—in combination with other factors—inform the analysis
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
 
Okamakama

Okamakama

‎
#25,290
#25,290
Toby D. Dog said:
I guess mass bombing in a week and killing 3500 defenseless civilians is not genocide.
Click to expand...
First of all, can you source the deaths and prove they were definitely not a false flag (as the hospital one is insinuated to be)?

Secondly they're attacking in response to the terror attacks. All gloves come off when you butcher people, bud.
 
Sekai Saikyō Mihawk

Sekai Saikyō Mihawk

‎
#25,291
#25,291
Reporter Motaz_Azaiza posted a video, of the building across from him getting blown up. Same lights in the sky as yesterday's attack on the hospital, same whistling sound, just before impact as yesterday and the same explosion as yesterday's hospital attack. You can also hear the jet/s fly past just before impact.

And just like yesterday it was 🇮🇱 who also did this attack

https://instagram.com/stories/motaz_azaiza/3216485228049340064?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
 
Phoenix D. King

Phoenix D. King

‎
#25,295
#25,295
Toby D. Dog said:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...9700-wounded-israeli-strikes-gaza-2023-10-16/
2800 killed. And that was 2 days ago.
[automerge]1697668101[/automerge]
The IDF lied about the beheaded babies. They lie all the goddamn time. There is a real chance they were the ones that bombed that hospital.
Click to expand...
mods need to start doing something about disinformation, this is getting ridiculous
[automerge]1697669083[/automerge]
also @Sekai Saikyō Mihawk is so blatantly an alt...

all but like 2-3 messages are in this thread, be a little less obvious
 
Sekai Saikyō Mihawk

Sekai Saikyō Mihawk

‎
#25,296
#25,296
Phoenix D. King said:
mods need to start doing something about disinformation, this is getting ridiculous
[automerge]1697669083[/automerge]
also @Sekai Saikyō Mihawk is so blatantly an alt...

all but like 2-3 messages are in this thread, be a little less obvious
Click to expand...
Hmm you seem stressed. Is it about the number of civilians 🇮🇱 have murdered or are you off your beta blockers?
 
Okamakama

Okamakama

‎
#25,297
#25,297
Toby D. Dog said:
So you kill innocent civilians in response? How are innocents responsible for this? I knew you were heartless but jesus...
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that enemies do exist, and if people commit slaughter against civilians, it's likely going to result in civilians being slaughtered in return. Is it right? No. Can I understand a visceral desire for 'revenge'? Yes. If someone harmed my wife, killed her, raped her, I would see red. I can imagine a lot of Israelis feel that way.

This is essentially a "poor Palestine, poor innocent Palestine," argument. They fucking elected Hamas, bro. Doesn't matter if the right to vote was rescinded. People wanted that form of governance at first.

Furthermore, please prove to me that they lied about decapitating babies too. Prove it, or is it a 'trust me bro' moment?

I'm not heartless. I'm just not a histrionic. You seem to be unable to recognize this. To overly feel everything, constantly, is not good. I have my own sensitive topics -- but sheesh.
 
Toby D. Dog

Toby D. Dog

‎
#25,300
#25,300
Okamakama said:
No, I'm saying that enemies do exist, and if people commit slaughter against civilians, it's likely going to result in civilians being slaughtered in return. Is it right? No. Can I understand a visceral desire for 'revenge'? Yes. If someone harmed my wife, killed her, raped her, I would see red. I can imagine a lot of Israelis feel that way.

This is essentially a "poor Palestine, poor innocent Palestine," argument. They fucking elected Hamas, bro. Doesn't matter if the right to vote was rescinded. People wanted that form of governance at first.

Furthermore, please prove to me that they lied about decapitating babies too. Prove it, or is it a 'trust me bro' moment?

I'm not heartless. I'm just not a histrionic. You seem to be unable to recognize this. To overly feel everything, constantly, is not good. I have my own sensitive topics -- but sheesh.
Click to expand...
This is not a shonen manga man. You don't kill innocents just because a terrorist group did it. That's how half a million iraqis died in the first place. You're a privileged first world kid that has never had to deal with real struggle like the gazans living in an open air prison or not having clean water to drink. Your lack of emapthy is palpable, and truly cringeworthy.

Btw a lot of the victim's families have called for a ceasefire, those who experience real loss are able to gauge how painful it is to lose a child or a parent regardless of who you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top