Theoretical question.

The Next Generation
Sionnach Glic
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 26014
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath

Post by Sionnach Glic »

We saw it in the senate murder scene!
Funny, I recall everyone getting killed. Where's this "eye" you claim exists?
But areas like government building tend to be filled with innocent civies, like tourists, children on field trips, and second rate assasins.
So? They'd likely be A) not allowed near important areas such as the Senate chamber itself and B) cleared out for security reasons when the Senate's in session. Also, even if the place is packed full to the brim with civilians, that's still only going to kill an extra dozen or so.
You don't really understand the concept of a Dictator do you?
You really don't understand what topic we're debating, do you?

Look, you said:
The Romulans have a supiriority complex and tend to look down on other species so xenocide would've been relativly minor to a few hundred innocent deaths
I replied that we have never observed such tendancies among the Romulan populace, and that is likely why the leaders were squeemish about Shinzon's plan. You then went off on some tangent about a dictator being able to do whatever he wants, despite the fact that this is totaly irrelevant. Just because Hitler was able to kill 6 million Jews, it doesn't mean the German people agreed with what he was doing, which is what this is about: the people and the higher-ups, not the dictator.
Like, the Romulans would be okay with a clone and the Remans killing humans?
To that I respond with the exact same point of what would happen if the US President ordered nukes to be launched at Rwanda even though the country did nothing to them.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Teaos wrote:When does it go from killing a few of them to genocide though? Small pox can't really be considered Genocide.
Any methodical action or series of actions and policies designed with the explicit intent of ridding yourself (or even just intentional reduction) of an unwanted ethnic group or racial group is ethnic cleansing or genocide. Deciding to wipe out the x tribe so that x area of land is all yours is still genocide even if "all Indians" weren't wiped out. I notice (not really a comment on here, I've seen it everywhere) that there are wildly different ideas about what genocide is. You don't need to succeed at wiping a group out for it to be a genocide... it just needs to be a methodical and intentional effort to produce some degree of that result.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Exactly. Will the horror in Darfur only be considered genocide after all the black africans are wiped out? What about Burma? I'd say it's genocide now. Where is the U.N.? Off taking an extended vacation, like our leaders over here, I guess.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

The UN is doing exactly what it was designed to do - avoiding any commitment that might embarrass one or more of the great powers. Everyone's making noises about how dreadful it is, but no one except the US has the strategic lift capability to doing anything serious, and the US is a) overclouded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and b) not interested in another Mogadishu. There's also China's involvement, which means the potential for a great power clash if the US got involved.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

Tsukiyumi wrote:Exactly. Will the horror in Darfur only be considered genocide after all the black africans are wiped out? What about Burma? I'd say it's genocide now. Where is the U.N.? Off taking an extended vacation, like our leaders over here, I guess.
Sudan has already stated that they wouldn't accept a force that included anyone except African Union troops, which are some of the worst in the world. They get to show that they are willing to stop the killing by admitting foreign troops but they don't change anything because they specify crappy troops. Walla! The status quo is preserved.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Cpl Kendall wrote:Sudan has already stated that they wouldn't accept a force that included anyone except African Union troops, which are some of the worst in the world. They get to show that they are willing to stop the killing by admitting foreign troops but they don't change anything because they specify crappy troops. Walla! The status quo is preserved.
Then I guess it's a lot like our attempted aid after the 2004 tsunami; the Indonesians wouldn't even allow our personnel to set foot on their soil. If they don't want our help, f*ck 'em. That's my take on it anyways. The term "genocide" still applies, though.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Then I guess it's a lot like our attempted aid after the 2004 tsunami; the Indonesians wouldn't even allow our personnel to set foot on their soil. If they don't want our help, f*ck 'em. That's my take on it anyways. The term "genocide" still applies, though.
They did, I know a sailor that was in Sumatra. They told the US to bog off in public and then quietly let aid in.
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Cpl Kendall wrote:They did, I know a sailor that was in Sumatra. They told the US to bog off in public and then quietly let aid in.
So that whole " No infidels allowed" thing was to save face. Good to know.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
So that whole " No infidels allowed" thing was to save face. Good to know.
They folded pretty quick when it became obvious that they'd be screwed without aid from the West, most of which was delivered by various navies.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

Any methodical action or series of actions and policies designed with the explicit intent of ridding yourself (or even just intentional reduction) of an unwanted ethnic group or racial group is ethnic cleansing or genocide. Deciding to wipe out the x tribe so that x area of land is all yours is still genocide even if "all Indians" weren't wiped out. I notice (not really a comment on here, I've seen it everywhere) that there are wildly different ideas about what genocide is. You don't need to succeed at wiping a group out for it to be a genocide... it just needs to be a methodical and intentional effort to produce some degree of that result.
Exactly.

Saying when something is genocide and something isnt is not easy.

The Carpet bombing of cities in WWII. They never really stood a chance of killing a whole population that way but it was wiping out massive amounts of people. COuld almost be called genocide my some peoples definition.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

That would be a rather loose interpretation. The napalm bombing of Dresden, for example, was certainly horrific, but it was based on a military goal - it couldn't be described as having the intention of eradicating the German people.

Stalin starving Ukraine would be an "on-the-line" example; it's dubious whether he thought that it would actually succeed in wiping out the Ukrainians, but the goal was certainly simply killing as many Ukrainians as possible.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

Stalin starving Ukraine would be an "on-the-line" example;
If you include that you almost have to include the Battle of the Atlantic where the U-boats almost starved Britain. It didnt work but they sure tried.

I'm not saying any of these are just point out thats its hard to draw a line and label events genocide or not.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

That's what I meant by "on-the-line." But the key differnece was that Britain was a military opponent of Germany; Ukraine was a province of the USSR.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

So is it not genocide if you are at war with them?
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Teaos wrote:
Stalin starving Ukraine would be an "on-the-line" example;
If you include that you almost have to include the Battle of the Atlantic where the U-boats almost starved Britain. It didnt work but they sure tried.

I'm not saying any of these are just point out thats its hard to draw a line and label events genocide or not.
It certainly shouldn't be used lightly. What I find aggravating (infuriating, at times even) though is when people who pose as intellectually honest about issues of history and conflict turn around and arbitrarily raise the bar on genocide when they wish to deny or reduce the liability in particular instances. The number of Americans quick to see Spielberg movies about WWII and reminisce sadly about how horrific it was and then turning around and scoffing derisively at historical claims of genocidal acts against American Indians is rather disconcerting.
So is it not genocide if you are at war with them?
If it fits the definition I gave I would call it genocide no matter what. Or at least a genocidal act. I think that even if someone is not necessarily going out of thier way to kill a particular group, but wholly doesn't mind willfully doing so to achieve some other objective (political, financial, etc.) then it can still qualify. Much like terrorism, people ask what is the difference between an individual or a government blowing up an urban block of a city with civilians inside. Personally I do not think there is a difference to the person who experiences such an act, and claims that there is some tangible noble line between doing it as a government and doing it as an illegal organization are just rhetoric.
Post Reply