Was 9/11 genocide ?

[Evil Tyrant]

No it was not genocide, it was an attack on us. Genocide is rounding people up and killing them because of their race/culture. 911 was an attack as part of a war being waged on us by Al Qaida and other similar groups. Why even bother to have the word genocide if we are going to keep mangling it's meaning beyond recognition.

 

[IglooDame]

Quick point of clarification, there are Mohicans alive, and they have a reservation and a website: http://www.mohican.com/

And to call the 9/11 attacks genocide is to stretch the definition enough as to include Hiroshima/Nagasaki, all the city firebombings, the London Blitz, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Japanese subway gassing, the Spanish train bombings, and the recent London bus bombings.

Mass murder does not equal genocide.

 

[kingjoshi]

The American Civil War was two acts of genocide on the same people. And they both failed!

 

[IamSid]

No, New Yorkers are not American. They are superiour to the average American!


J/K.

 

[Jawz II]

recently americas government (congress?) decided that the 1 million armenians killed by turks in the 1930s was not genocide since the number wasnt high enough.

they say its a "tragedy" but not "genocide".

if thats true i dont see how 3000+ is genocide.

 

[Phlegmak]

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

So funny. He's one of the few people to agree with you and he's the voice of reason. Most people disagree with you so they're...unreasonable?

Please don't ignore this question: how old are you?

 

[Cu Chulainn]

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

Obviously.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

In fairness to Red Stranger if you read the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 9/11 could be classed as a 'genocide'. But then since a single person killing another person because of their national, ethnical, racial or religious group could also be classed as genocide then it is a matter of should 9/11 be classed as 'genocide'? With the greatest of respect to all those who died, it should not.

I agree with Jaws if Turkey's Armenian crusade wasn't genocide, and if the world had to stop and think before deciding Rwanda was, then 9/11 doesn't come close.

Besides Red I thought you was an avid Bush supporter? Why would you want to class 9/11 as a 'genocide'? I don't see a politician who is unable to protect his citizens from genocide as having much of a future.

 

[Masquerouge]

9/11 was not a genocide. You'll need to kill a significant number of the US population befores you can qualify for a genocide.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

9/11 was not a genocide. You'll need to kill a significant number of the US population befores you can qualify for a genocide.

What's a significant number?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What's a significant number?

More than %0.00001, I should think.

 

[Masquerouge]

What's a significant number?

He. Good question. I guess more that 3,000/290,000,000...

 

[Cu Chulainn]

What's a significant number?

I don't remember exactly what statistical significance requires, but I imagine 1% would do in this case. Hell, even .01% would be something.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

More than %0.0001, I should think.

He. Good question. I guess more that 3,000/290,000,000...

I agree, I was just making the point that the Law doesn't make any distinction. In Theory one person killing another could be genocide.

 

[Rhymes]

Anyone who voted for genocide doesn't knwo what a genocide is.

 

[Red Stranger]

Actually, I know what the definition of genocide is. And I have already clarified my position in this thread
link

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.

You don't have to look a certain way to be classified as a a national group. There are genocides in Africa, by Africans, but there is no way to tell the oppressor and the oppressed apart. The only way to tell their difference is by their national identity. Likewise, the only way to tell who is an American is by his/her national identity, not by looks.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Actually, I know what the definition of genocide is. And I have already clarified my position in this thread
link

Scroll right up to my link, then.

 

[Red Stranger]

So funny. He's one of the few people to agree with you and he's the voice of reason. Most people disagree with you so they're...unreasonable?

Just because we're the minority doesn't mean that we are the unreasonable ones. Remember in LOTR when Pippin told Frodo not to trust the Golem, but nobody listened to him. Turns out he was right. Well, Covok and I are Pippin, and you're all Nobody.

Please don't ignore this question: how old are you?

 

[Red Stranger]

Scroll right up to my link, then.

Your link doesn't post anything to refute me. It's just another post with the definition.

 

[King Flevance]

I know tons of American Indians. Are we talking about cultural genocide or actual genocide?

Are they 100%? Most native americans are not full blooded anymore. I am aware that there are still a number out there, but native americans I would say was a declaration of genocide with out actually declaring it. Something along the lines of "We have to get rid of the savages in such and such territory" and it never ceased until America was claimed.

I think the world would be a different place entirely if the native americans had been able to hold strong after the Lousiana purchase. It would be an interesting world to live in.