1914-18 : The Great Slaughter - Challenging A Year Of Myth Making.

[stowpirate]

With all this debate over the meaning of words no wonder the world forgot.

 

[frogwoman]

How would you prove that all their beliefs were bollocks? They could turn round and provide evidence? Like the idea of the blood libel, how would you go far back in history to say that every single example of that was bollocks? WE know that it is but would there be definitive evidence to show definitely that ALL of their beliefs were all bollocks, i mean its difficult enough to get a rape conviction?

 

[cesare]

Just as I said.

So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.

It means--doesn't it--that if (for example) Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the leg of a passing member, he would be guilty of genocide.

Appealing as the idea may be, I can't regard it as a practical or useful definition of genocide. Can you?

It doesn't say that.

 

[phildwyer]

It doesn't say that.

But in post 718 you say that it does.

You say that it includes "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

So does it or doesn't it?

 

[cesare]

But in post 718 you say that it does.

You say that it includes "intent" to destroy a group "in part" by such physical means as "causing serious harm" to any of its members.

So does it or doesn't it?

The text is clear - it does not refer to individuals.

 

[phildwyer]

How would you prove that all their beliefs were bollocks?

You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?

I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that. I'd prove it very easily. There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks. Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.

What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?

 

[stowpirate]

It would be more productive to debate was it genocide or a precursor to holocaust?

 

[frogwoman]

you'd end up putting through people the trauma of having to disprove genocidal beliefs as well as proving the genocide happened, so they'd end up getting away with it!

 

[phildwyer]

The text is clear - it does not refer to individuals.

Oh yes it does.

It refers to "members of the group." That means any member, not two or more.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it does mean two or more. So if Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the legs of two of its members, he would by that definition be guilty of genocide.

So it is a very stupid definition of genocide.

 

[frogwoman]

You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?

I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that. I'd prove it very easily. There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks. Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.

What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?

the fact that some of their allegations go back thousands of years

 

[butchersapron]

It would be more productive to debate was it genocide or a precursor to holocaust?

Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.

 

[phildwyer]

Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.

The "Armenian genocide" is a particularly tenacious myth about WW1.

 

[stowpirate]

Oh yes it does.

It refers to "members of the group." That means any member, not two or more.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it does mean two or more. So if Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the legs of two of its members, he would by that definition be guilty of genocide.

So it is a very stupid definition of genocide.

Taken in isolation maybe albeit any real legal case would be far more complex.

 

[stowpirate]

The "Armenian genocide" is a particularly tenacious myth about WW1.

I have a feeling we are going around in circles here?

 

[stowpirate]

Or, the myths about ww1 and how to combat them.

You could blame me for starting this tangent but some still actually beleive it never happened?

 

[frogwoman]

You are seriously asking me how I'd prove that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were bollocks?

I'd have absolutely no difficulty proving that. I'd prove it very easily. There can be no problem at all--as far as I can see--in proving that the Nazis' belief about the Jews were 100%, pure, unadulterated bollocks. Nothing could be more easily proved, in my opinion.

What difficulties do you envisage in constructing such proof?

Well lets say the nazis said for example, "ah yeah but look what happened in 1160, you can't refute what we said about that because there's no physical evidence any more and all the written accounts were by people sympathetic to our view!" or whatever? So although we know it was a complete load of horseshit there would be no way to refute these charges?

you would end up having to prove that absolutely everything said by the nazis (or whoever) was bollocks, AND THEN have to prove what they had done. I'd rather just concentrate on what actually happened

 

[frogwoman]

and besides why should victims of genocide have to prove that what was said about them was bollocks

 

[cesare]

Oh yes it does.

It refers to "members of the group." That means any member, not two or more.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it does mean two or more. So if Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the legs of two of its members, he would by that definition be guilty of genocide.

So it is a very stupid definition of genocide.

No. Members is plural.

I quite like the definition. It's broad enough to encompass those trying to wriggle out of genocide "we just accidentallied a million or so, it wasn't genocide cos we didn't manage to get all of them and some of them were just maimed" but exact enough to be clear that it refers to intent to exterminate rather than the result of warfare.

 

[likesfish]

Phil they loaded armenians into cattle trucks to be taken by train to a desert to be "resettled" where they were killed.
They first killed all the armenians serving in the turkish military.
Thats not the chaos of war thats planned.
If it sounds like genocide its genocide

 

[DotCommunist]

on a grim side note I read that the katyn masacre was carried out by one man, shooting people one by one all day. Apparently he used to cry to his grandmother after work 'I don't know if what I'm doing is right'

ffs

 

[stowpirate]

These photo are very graphic:

http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/armenian-genocide-02-jpg.jpeg
http://www.dailystormer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/armenian-genocide-02-jpg.jpeg
http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/refuges_album.php

 

[stowpirate]

on a grim side note I read that the katyn masacre was carried out by one man, shooting people one by one all day. Apparently he used to cry to his grandmother after work 'I don't know if what I'm doing is right'

ffs

Really sick as holder of the Guinness World Record for 'Most Prolific Executioner". Must make mental note to boycott Guinness World Record books as clearly aimed at Kids.

 

[teqniq]

NO GLORY OPEN LETTER

Open Letter: How should we remember the first world war?

2014 marks the hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. Far from being a "war to end all wars" or a "victory for democracy", this was a military disaster and a human catastrophe.

We are disturbed, therefore, to hear that David Cameron plans to spend £55,000,000 on "truly national commemorations" to mark this anniversary. Mr. Cameron has quite inappropriately compared these to the "Diamond Jubilee celebrations" and stated that their aim will be to stress our "national spirit".

That they will be run at least in part by former generals and ex-defence secretaries reveals just how misconceived these plans are.....

 

[butchersapron]

NG is the counterfire initiative around this.

 

[teqniq]

NG?

 

[butchersapron]

NG?

The thing you linked to - No Glory!

 

[teqniq]

hahaha ok

 

[co-op]

Oh yes it does.

It refers to "members of the group." That means any member, not two or more.

But for the sake of argument, let's say it does mean two or more. So if Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the legs of two of its members, he would by that definition be guilty of genocide.

So it is a very stupid definition of genocide.

It's a valiant attempt phil but breaking legs (even several of them) does not constitute an attempt to "intend to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". But the definition as often with legal ones has to be drawn widely in order to allow the courts to tighten it in practise because there will be no easy definition of the concept. It's surprisingly hard to define murder when you get down to it.

But since you've picked on the example of what you've chosen to call by the derogatory term"Sioux" - by which you mean the Dakota/Lakota/Santee etc peoples of north America - I see absolutely no problem as describing their treatment by European settlers as genocidal.

In fact your choice of language makes you a genocide-apologist.

 

[co-op]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-former-leader-found-guilty-of-genocide.html

Good to see this old bastard get sent down.

 

[likesfish]

1918 is worth commerating as the end of the tragic war.
1914 was the start but nothing worth commerating the british empire probably couldnt avoid being sucked into it but it was hardly a fight for freedom.