Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Indeed. It is defined in the relevant Convention as follows:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Killing an innocent in the course of killing a terrorist, while tragic, is not remotely akin to genocide.
Nor is attempting to wipe out an enemy military, such as Hezbollah.
The Apache, the Huks, the Hmong, and a very very lengthy list of others were victims of genocide. Hamas and Hezbollah cannot be, by definition.
eta: One could, however, make the argument that Hezbollah and Hamas are perpetrators of genocide. Are not their indiscriminate rocket attacks designed to destroy an ethnic or religious group in whole or in part?
|
Hezbollah and Hamas are both political parties as well as paramilitary organizations, living among an ethnically identical polpulation. You, along with Hank and Club, have openly and expressly advocated what is basically a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy. That sounds like intent to destroy a religious and ethnic population, which fits within all but the last of the conditions of genocide you quoted.
It's easy enough to say, "I only want to kill the terrorists; if some innocnet Arabs get killed as well, it's a necessary tragedy." It's apparently almost impossible to admit that it's genocide if for no other reason than you can't distinguish the bad guys from the innocents.
