This thread was about whether or not it’s “fair or accurate” to call them “genocidal”. The word, “literally” taken down to its roots, does mean “geno” (people) “cide” (killing), but actual definitions in use are more nuanced. From the UN “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, for instance:
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.
The UN’s historically been an apologist for atrocities whenever the power benefits afford the defense of the reprehensible. Pulling out a UN Convention definition when politically convenient is a disgrace, much like the UN’s history of confronting atrocities for the past 40 years.
This thread was about whether or not it’s “fair or accurate” to call them “genocidal”. The word, “literally” taken down to its roots, does mean “geno” (people) “cide” (killing), but actual definitions in use are more nuanced. From the UN “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, for instance:
The UN’s historically been an apologist for atrocities whenever the power benefits afford the defense of the reprehensible. Pulling out a UN Convention definition when politically convenient is a disgrace, much like the UN’s history of confronting atrocities for the past 40 years.
That’s basically an ad hominem. That’s a commonly accepted definition, address the content specifically if you have an issue with it.