Moscow Metro Bombed

[wyly]

I guess the Gazans really have it coming to them after electing the Hamas government. I guess it would be ok if we just wiped them all from existence since they are responsible for electing a terrorist group as their government. Do you agree?

for decades when the Israeli's had more moderate opponents to negotiate with they did what? nothing...when it was Arafat and the PLO to negotiate with they did what? nothing...now that it's Hamas... oh! their to militant to negotiate with ...how are you surprised that each successive generation of Palestinians becomes more militant when Israel refuses to negotiate in good faith...

What one person calls murder, another may consider a casualty of war. As for torture, coercive interrogation is sometimes necessary, even relatively "freedom-loving" nations like the US seem to realize this and employ it when necessary. And as for genocide, that term gets bandied around by people around so much these days it has lost most of its meaning.

Also, whether the state is "surprised" or not, its first duty is to protect its own people. When they are attacked by terrorists, even if those terrorists may have had some legitimate grievance, the state should take actions to keep its citizens safe, and those actions should most certainly include carrying out military operations against the terrorists.

The atrocities that the Russian government and army may have committed in Chechnya are not the fault of innocents in theaters or in metro stations. If these people you are championing were truly "freedom fighters" and not terrorists, they would focus on fighting the forces that are oppressing them, freeing their captured prisoners, defending their villages and civilians, etc. Instead, they go off and perform suicide attacks. They care not for their lives or for their freedom, they care only about murdering civilians and inflicting suffering. That is why they are terrorists, and why they must be hunted down and eliminated.

cut the BS and do the research and stop apologizing for a brutal repression...an army moves into your region, bomb your cities, kidnap civilians for ransom, gang rape your your daughter or sister, torture and execute your father brother and your son and your going to take the moral high ground...let me offer you a big Fuck off, that's absolute BS...

the citizens of a democratic country are responsible for the actions of it's government, they cannot go about their business oblivious to what their troops are doing...the citizens of the USA were very loud and clear what they thought of the war their government was waging in Vietnam, that's what you do in a democracy, not turn a blind eye as conservatives are all to willing to do....

Edited April 2, 2010 by wyly

[Bonam]

for decades when the Israeli's had more moderate opponents to negotiate with they did what? nothing...when it was Arafat and the PLO to negiotiate with they did what? nothing...how are you surprised that each succesive generation of palestinians becomes more militant

Interesting, so you apply your view of people responsible for the actions of their government to Russians but not to Gazans.

cut the BS and do the research and stop apologizing for a brutal repression...an army moves into your region, bomb your cities, kidnap civilians for ransom, gang rape your your daughter or sister, torture and execute your father brother and your son and your going to take the moral high ground...let me offer you a big Fuck off, that's absolute BS...

It's not about the morale high ground. It's about doing what is practical and useful in the face of such circumstances. Going and blowing yourself up in a metro station does not further your cause. If you feel obligated to fight, fight the forces that are "repressing" you, not random civilians.

the citizens of a democratic country are responsible for the actions of it's government, they cannot go about their business oblivious to what their troops are doing...the citizens of the USA were very loud and clear what they thought of the war their government was waging in Vietnam, that's what you do in a democracy, not turn a blind eye as conservatives are all to willing to do....

And if they fail to protest in this way than they are legitimate targets to slaughter? Is that what you are saying?

[wyly]

Wyly, your points/arguments remind me of Leftist/Socialist Jews in Poland in 1938.

Your logic may seem correct but you are really missing the point. IOW, your logic assumes too much. (As they say, "assume" makes an ass of u and me.)

there's only one ass here...the one that lost his his moral compass and refuses to investigate Russian atrocities/genocide because it contradicts his cherished hate fest for muslims and that won't do...

you have no honesty, you have no morality...you are a coward...

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

[Bonam]

there's only one ass here...the one that lost his his moral compass and refuses to investigate Russian atrocities/genocide because it contradicts his cherished hate fest for muslims and that won't do...

you have no honesty, you have no morality...you are a coward...

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

What is the reason for your quotation of Niemoller? In what way do you believe the situation being discussed is similar to the Holocaust? Is this like the thread where you equated climate change to the Holocaust? Is everything you happen to not like equated with the Holocaust in your mind?

Edited April 2, 2010 by Bonam

[wyly]

Interesting, so you apply your view of people responsible for the actions of their government to Russians but not to Gazans.

interesting you deflecting to a completely different situation in order to justify genocide

It's not about the morale high ground. It's about doing what is practical and useful in the face of such circumstances. Going and blowing yourself up in a metro station does not further your cause. If you feel obligated to fight, fight the forces that are "repressing" you, not random civilians.

if it was my family that was exterminated I'm strapping a bomb to myself and looking for revenge...you have this assinine view that militia's go toe to toe with professional heavily armed military, go head first into the slaughter they will lose a suicide scenario, oh how very noble and unrealistic, there are rules of war they're covered in the Geneva Convention(heard of it?) which the Russians have torn up and thrown away and you expect civility from the Chechens ...the west has watched this genocide go on for years and have said nothing for fear of pissing of the Russians (but it's ok they're those filthy muslims )

And if they fail to protest in this way than they are legitimate targets to slaughter? Is that what you are saying?

the average russian supports the slaughter so it's hardly surprising they're targets as well...

so what your trying to say is genocide is ok correct? and those victimized by genocide must obey the Geneva Convention because they're muslims but the Russians are exempt because they're not muslims...

[wyly]

What is the reason for your quotation of Niemoller? In what way do you believe the situation being discussed is similar to the Holocaust?

HOLOCAUST = GENOCIDE CHECHNYA = GENOCIDE is that too difficult an analogy for you? or are you trying to say genocide is only reserved for jews, muslims don't count as they're not really humans...

once again since you don't seem to get it..

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

Is this like the thread where you equated climate change to the Holocaust? Is everything you happen to not like equated with the Holocaust in your mind?

only in your holier than thou imagination...

BONAM supports genocide...

[August1991]

there's only one ass here...the one that lost his his moral compass and refuses to investigate Russian atrocities/genocide because it contradicts his cherished hate fest for muslims and that won't do...

you have no honesty, you have no morality...you are a coward...

WTF?

Wyly, you love to argue for the sake of arguing. You kibbitz. All fine and good but your argument reminds me of Jewish discussions in Poland in the late 1930s. You, like they, entirely miss the point.

---

She says that the sky is blue but you claim that the sky is red. You, she and others argue. When the hurricane hits, the sky is grey.

Wyly, what is the sky's colour?

[Bonam]

if it was my family that was exterminated I'm strapping a bomb to myself and looking for revenge...

Good to know. As for me, I'd be finding ways to try to survive.

is that too difficult an analogy for you?

Yeah it is too difficult of an analogy for me. Where are the extermination camps in Chechnya again? The medical mutilation experiments? The attempt to wipe out certain ethnic groups from existence? The millions of dead?

Sorry but these are nowhere close to being the same thing, no matter how you might like to spin it.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

BONAM supports genocide...

So when you've lost the argument, you resort to slander?

[wyly]

WTF?

Wyly, you love to argue for the sake of arguing. You kibbitz. All fine and good but your argument reminds me of Jewish discussions in Poland in the late 1930s. You, like they, entirely miss the point.

Mr moral compass is given the opportunity to objectively look at an accusation of genocide and he does what?..refuses...deflect, deny, avoid anything but being the honest objective poster you pretend to be...

what does this demonstrate? you approve of genocide of Muslims...now we all know what you are...

Sieg Heil Mr moral compass....

[wyly]

Good to know. As for me, I'd be finding ways to try to survive.

Yeah it is too difficult of an analogy for me. Where are the extermination camps in Chechnya again? The medical mutilation experiments? The attempt to wipe out certain ethnic groups from existence? The millions of dead?

Sorry but these are nowhere close to being the same thing, no matter how you might like to spin it.

at any time you could have stated you did not approve of the genocide in Chechnya, how many posts have you contributed to the thread and did you once condemn the genocide???? not even once...you justified it, you made excuses, you downplay, you belittle murder rape and torture...you approve...

...and all you had to say was "I don't approve of what the Russians have done" or words to that effect...but you couldn't do it...

now like Mr moral compass, we know what you really are too

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

[wyly]

So when you've lost the argument, you resort to slander?

slander you can't be slandered on an anonymous forum...no real people, no damage

by your refusal to condemn genocide you label yourself...if your not against it you must be for it..

[Bonam]

slander you can't be slandered on an anonymous forum...no real people, no damage

by your refusal to condemn genocide you label yourself...if your not against it you must be for it..

Yet you are the one who supports the slaughter of innocent civilians by suicide-bombing terrorists. Apparently, they deserved it since their government committed unfortunate acts in some war. Also you've yet to present any evidence of "genocide".

[nicky10013]

Blame the victim, or suggest that the oppressed have a legitimate claim.

Sorry, Nicky. Wrong on both points.

We in the West, and that includes Israel, are products of the Enlightenment and the Scientific Method. We, like ancient Athenians, prefer democracy. We are prepared to listen to legitimate, contrary arguments.

We now are facing superstitious Medieval fanatics, people from a different era, from a Dark Age.

I'm not saying they have a legitimate claim, I'm saying they think they have a legitimate claim. There's a difference.

To play devils advocate, the enlightment and the scientific method produced aircraft and smartbombs yet we still happen to drop weapons on innocent villages. In the end, isn't all war medieval?

To me, the thinkers of the enlightment would call for the end of bloodshed, not indulge in it.

[nicky10013]

HOLOCAUST = GENOCIDE CHECHNYA = GENOCIDE is that too difficult an analogy for you? or are you trying to say genocide is only reserved for jews, muslims don't count as they're not really humans...

once again since you don't seem to get it..

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

only in your holier than thou imagination...

BONAM supports genocide...

No, genocide is a very specific accusation. There is a set definition for genocide. As horrible as it sounds, mass killings and genocide aren't necessarily the same thing.

The law was drafted by Raphael Lemkin and taken up by the UN in either 1947 or 1948. I'd post it here but I've got to leave to pick up some friends right now (beautiful weather!). It's easy to find in wikipedia, it's under Genocide Prevention Act of either 1947 or 1948. It lists all the conditions which have to be met in order for an act to be declared genocide.

[DogOnPorch]

for decades when the Israeli's had more moderate opponents to negotiate with they did what? nothing...when it was Arafat and the PLO to negotiate with they did what? nothing...now that it's Hamas... oh! their to militant to negotiate with ...how are you surprised that each successive generation of Palestinians becomes more militant when Israel refuses to negotiate in good faith...

The moderate Palestinian opponent circa 1919-1964.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSUEx1cKUlg

[eyeball]

The moderate Palestinian opponent circa 1919-1964.

Right...and here's the same old shit in a slightly different bucket...

[wyly]

No, genocide is a very specific accusation. There is a set definition for genocide. As horrible as it sounds, mass killings and genocide aren't necessarily the same thing.

The law was drafted by Raphael Lemkin and taken up by the UN in either 1947 or 1948. I'd post it here but I've got to leave to pick up some friends right now (beautiful weather!). It's easy to find in wikipedia, it's under Genocide Prevention Act of either 1947 or 1948. It lists all the conditions which have to be met in order for an act to be declared genocide.

wiki as a source will result in an automatic F on any Uni paper...mass killings and genocide are the same thing as inconvenient as it may be to you justify it...denial of a crime is one of the stages of genocide

Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or [in part[/u], a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) 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;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

[wyly]

Yet you are the one who supports the slaughter of innocent civilians by suicide-bombing terrorists. Apparently, they deserved it since their government committed unfortunate acts in some war. Also you've yet to present any evidence of "genocide".

this is just a lame attempt to deflect attention from your beliefs that you approve of genocide I never posted ANYWHERE I supported the slaughter of innocents, I only explained the reason for it...and here you are posting and once again you still refuse to condemn the wholesale slaughter of muslims civilians, if you honestly gave a shit it would be a simple matter of stating that...but no you refuse because you want to hide behind a justification of dehumanizing propaganda, "they're muslims, they're terrorists they should all die"...the hate is so deep within you you're not even able to post a lie pretending to condemn it...

last time I had an exchange with someone with your's and Mr moral compass's mind set was a former member of the Hitler-Jugend SS, then as now I feel disgusted and dirty from the exchange...

I know what you are and and now so does everyone else on the forum...

[nicky10013]

wiki as a source will result in an automatic F on any Uni paper...mass killings and genocide are the same thing as inconvenient as it may be to you justify it...denial of a crime is one of the stages of genocide

Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment

of the Crime of Genocide

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or [in part[/u], a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) 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;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

They're both crimes against humanity, but genocide and mass death are different charges within that.

As for citing wiki as a university source, don't be stupid. I've read the text of the law in it's original form. I've also randomly looked it up on wikipedia. It doesn't take a university professor to realize that they're the same.

Where you're bolding the definitions of genocide, notice the specific term *member of the group.* This refers to the race or religion someone may belong to. Though massacres can easily fit this definition (the holocaust comes to mind) most don't. The Soviet Union for example. There are hundreds of mass graves around Moscow and all over the Soviet Union. The killings don't constitute genocide because he didn't specifically target a vulnerable class of citizen.

There are debates over what he did in the Ukraine was genocide. However, the proof just isn't there at the moment (keep in mind scholars can't get full access to state archives) to prove that Stalin deliberately targeted the Ukrainians for starvation.

[Bonam]

wiki as a source will result in an automatic F on any Uni paper

Have you ever gone to University? This is certainly not the case. I've had professors who specifically recommended the use of Wikipedia. Frankly, it is an excellent reference on many topics, and many pages on Wikipedia specifically cite references for further reading and to corroborate the statements made.

this is just a lame attempt to deflect attention from your beliefs that you approve of genocide

More blatant lies on your part. You can scream genocide all you want, doesn't make it true. You can call people supporters of genocide all you want too, doesn't make that true either. Perhaps you need to realize that in the real world simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true? Grow up a bit and realize that debating politics is not like asking your parents for candy.

[nicky10013]

Have you ever gone to University? This is certainly not the case. I've had professors who specifically recommended the use of Wikipedia. Frankly, it is an excellent reference on many topics, and many pages on Wikipedia specifically cite references for further reading and to corroborate the statements made.

To be fair, you do get seriously docked for using wikipedia. I've never had a class where it's been accepted as a source. The thing is, the genocide convention you can find anywhere. Not hard to compare it to an academic source to the wikipedia article and say hey, the articles they list are exactly the same.

[Bonam]

To be fair, you do get seriously docked for using wikipedia.

Nope, not really true. Back in the days of my undergrad I had several papers in which I used wikipedia sources (often multiple wikipedia sources) and received high marks including 100%.

I've never had a class where it's been accepted as a source.

The thing is, the genocide convention you can find anywhere. Not hard to compare it to an academic source to the wikipedia article and say hey, the articles they list are exactly the same.

Agreed, and that is pretty much why wikipedia works just fine as a source. Almost every page has references at the bottom. One can click on those and see that they contain the same information as the wikipedia article. Furthermore, for classes where the professor does indeed not want to have wikipedia as a source, many students simply do their research on wikipedia, and then list the same references as the wikipedia pages do, thus easily bypassing their instructor's dislike for wikipedia.

Here's an excerpt from a recent study that shows the prevalence of wikipedia use among university students:

More than 2,000 students from six colleges and universities in the United States, including both public and private universities and four- and two-year colleges, were surveyed for the study. Students at Princeton did not participate in the study.

The study found that 82 percent of respondents reported using Wikipedia to obtain background information on a topic. While 52 percent reported that they were frequent users, only 22 percent said that they rarely, if ever, used the website. Students in four-year colleges were also more likely than those in two-year colleges to use Wikipedia for research.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/03/23/25575/

[nicky10013]

Nope, not really true. Back in the days of my undergrad I had several papers in which I used wikipedia sources (often multiple wikipedia sources) and received high marks including 100%.

I've never had a class where it's been accepted as a source.

Out of curiosity what school did you go to?

Agreed, and that is pretty much why wikipedia works just fine as a source. Almost every page has references at the bottom. One can click on those and see that they contain the same information as the wikipedia article. Furthermore, for classes where the professor does indeed not want to have wikipedia as a source, many students simply do their research on wikipedia, and then list the same references as the wikipedia pages do, thus easily bypassing their instructor's dislike for wikipedia.

Here's an excerpt from a recent study that shows the prevalence of wikipedia use among university students:

More than 2,000 students from six colleges and universities in the United States, including both public and private universities and four- and two-year colleges, were surveyed for the study. Students at Princeton did not participate in the study.

The study found that 82 percent of respondents reported using Wikipedia to obtain background information on a topic. While 52 percent reported that they were frequent users, only 22 percent said that they rarely, if ever, used the website. Students in four-year colleges were also more likely than those in two-year colleges to use Wikipedia for research.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/03/23/25575/

I used it as a base for research. Using it to gain some very vague background info as an indicator of where to go for future in depth research with academic sources isn't really a big deal because in the end if you do the work you'll end up catching potential mistakes in wikipedia. I've often times come across info on wikipedia that's inaccurate or incomplete despite citations when comparing with my own research through vetted academic works. On top of that, vandalism is a huge problem on wikipedia. Anyone who gives their email can essentially make a change.

Edited April 3, 2010 by nicky10013

[Bonam]

Out of curiosity what school did you go to?

UBC

I used it as a base for research. Using it to gain some very vague background info as an indicator of where to go for future in depth research with academic sources isn't really a big deal because in the end if you do the work you'll end up catching potential mistakes in wikipedia. I've often times come across info on wikipedia that's inaccurate or incomplete despite citations when comparing with my own research through vetted academic works. On top of that, vandalism is a huge problem on wikipedia. Anyone who gives their email can essentially make a change.

My field of study was more technical in nature. I have not noticed vandalism to be a problem on articles on technical topics. Perhaps it is a more common occurrence on more contentious topics, say those related to politics and modern events. But it has been a reliable source for technical information in my opinion. Actually, I've contributed to a number of technical articles myself.