Was 9/11 genocide ?

[covok48]

Yes.

The terrorists deliberately targeted innocent Americans and killed them (over over 3,000 is a low ballpark figure) regardless of religion, race, sexual-orientation, gender, politics, you name it. Like it's been said before, if they wanted a symbol, thery could've just nailed the Washington Monument or Statue of Liberty. But they wanted big buildings with people in them...

 

[Red Stranger]

No, civillians were being bombed. The civillians were often ordered by the Iraqi government to stay or couldn't leave due to congestion, other refuges being bombed, etc

If they still listened to the Iraqi government at that point, it means they were Saddam loyalists. It's hardly a genocide when you give people a choice.

I think you guys should stop grouping Iraqis with terrorists. We targeted terrorists of Iraqi nationality, not Iraqis in general.

 

[Red Stranger]

covok48, you are the voice of reason. I wonder who the third person is

 

[Erik Mesoy]

9/11 was in no way a genocide.

Genocide is defined and outlawed in this document. Article 2 reads:

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.

And like Taliesin said - Iraq is a genocide too by your standards.

Honestly, use words for what they mean, lest they lose that meaning.

Quoted for great truthery.

 

[Taliesin]

The other little point you're ignoring, of course, is that there is no "American people" on which a genocide might be perpetrated.

 

[Perfection]

Yes.

The terrorists deliberately targeted innocent Americans and killed them (over over 3,000 is a low ballpark figure) regardless of religion, race, sexual-orientation, gender, politics, you name it. Like it's been said before, if they wanted a symbol, thery could've just nailed the Washington Monument or Statue of Liberty. But they wanted big buildings with people in them...

Targetting Big Buildings of people isn't genocide.

covok48, you are the voice of reason. I wonder who the third person is

Somehow, when I think of you "voice of reason" doesn't pop into my head.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If they still listened to the Iraqi government at that point, it means they were Saddam loyalists. It's hardly a genocide when you give people a choice.

Like the civilians in the WTC were all Bush loyalists? Your argument has holes the size of Jupiter.

 

[covok48]

The other little point you're ignoring, of course, is that there is no "American people" on which a genocide might be perpetrated.

Then who are they? New Yorkers?

Targetting Big Buildings of people isn't genocide.

Good God in heaven, then I don't know what is.

 

[nonconformist]

We were bombing terrorists. We gave ample warning about our bombings and allowed time for the innocents to leave. If they stayed, they were either terrorists trying to defend their fortress, or sympathizers who will feed the terrorists. During the 911 genocide, the terrorists never gave us any warning about their attack.

Who are you, Hanoi Hannah?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

To be fair to Red if you read the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 9/11 could be classed as a 'genocide' given:

Article II: 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.

However, I don't think 9/11 falls into this category. 'Genocide' is implicity reserved for a sustained attack on a certain group. This is obviously evidenced by the International Community's reluctance to refer to Rwanda as a 'genocide' in action. The Convention is not clear whether for a 'genocide' to occur the attack must be discriminate. Quite rightly some have pointed out already that this cannot be the case given that the Holocaust is refered to as 'genocide' even though Jews were not the sole target.

I have seen posts by people who claim the attacks were symbolic. I would agree. There would have been a much bigger lost of life by flying the planes into a sports stadium or something similiar. The attacks focused on America's economic, military and, if the 4th plane was intended for the White House, political power. The terrorists could have hit the Statue of Liberty and I think the fact that they did not demonstrates that the terrorists do not simply "hate freedom". There was a clear message against the West's economic and military influence.

I'm not terrorist sympathising. I'm simply saying what I see.

EDIT: Sorry ERIK I hadn't seen that you'd posted the Convention first.

 

[funxus]

About the indians, how doesn't driving a certain ethnic group away from their homes and killing them whenever they don't comply not count as genocide? The intent was to make them flee the land, or kill them if they wouldn't, and anyone can figure out that if you do this for long enough, there won't be any place to run... If you do something knowing the consequences, I'd say it's pretty intentional.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Good God in heaven, then I don't know what is.

Are you telling us that terrorists aren't people or something?

BTW, for those curious about noncon's comment: Link. Vietnamese propagandess telling the American soldiers how unjust and immoral they were.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Ethnic cleansing = forced relocation (with the occasional massacre to get the point through) of minorities to create "ethnic pure" areas (see the Yugoslavia wars and I think the naive american issue aslo falls under this category)

Genocide: No chance to get away alive by relocation

9/11 was a terroristic attack without regard if the victims were Americans or not (yes there were numerous victims who were not US citizens). I see no attempted genocide here.
If they had entered with a terroristic command and only killed US citizens but left the others alive than it would have fallen under the genocide category (but the scale of vicitms compared to the number of US citizens make me believe that genocide would still be a too strong word)

 

[Taliesin]

Then who are they? New Yorkers?

They're Americans, but my point is that that qualifies them to be a target of genocide only under the most liberal possible definition of "national group," a definition which I think would render the term "genocide" fairly meaningless. It's just not possible to target "Americans" for genocide in the same way as one may target Jews, or Roma, or Hutus.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Definition of Genocide,

as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: '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; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'.

Although people died in New York, they didn't die because they were Americans, they died because they were in a building in a city in America. Subtle difference, but enough to qualify this as "non-genocide".

Edit: I was not the first to post it, it seems...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

If you want the read the Convention the way Red Jingoist wants to read it, any murder could be a genocide, because it

a) kills a member of a group
b) causes serious bodily harm to a member of the group
c) physically destroys part of the group
d) prevents that member (if it was a woman) of the group from giving birth
e) may cause that member's children to be put up for adoption

To be certain that all of the conditions from Article 2 are satisfied, let's kill unmarried, pre-menopausal mothers with children. That's genocide.

Edit: I was not the first to post it, it seems...

No, you were about the third, but don't worry. We need more people to post it, and a lot more people to explain it to Red Stranger.

 

[covok48]

You don't need to namecall people who disagree with you...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'm very sorry. I profusely apologise. I promise never to do it again.

Oh, and Red Stranger is absolutely right when he calls you the voice of reason. The rest of us are obviously unreasonable by implication.

 

[bathsheba666]

During the 911 genocide, the terrorists never gave us any warning about their attack.

Wasn't the previous attack a warning?
Why were the FBI looking for terrorists, if no-one was expecting this?

The catchphrase '911 genocide' is not remotely likely to catch on.
Or are you trying to exhaust what remaining sympathy is left after Bush took the major share?

Disingenuity will get you nowhere, except with your natural mental equals

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Is bombing Iraq genocide. Killing tens of thousands of Iraqies just becuase they have oil. The 9/11 bombers are heros who died defending their country.