Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
Dreadnaught
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:46 am
Posts: 262
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:56 pm 
 

The U.N. says no, but are they correct?
_________________
"Iron--Cold Iron--is master of men all!" --Rudyard Kipling

Top
 Profile  
TheJizzHammer
Metalhead

Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:47 pm
Posts: 1201
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:51 am 
 

I think there's one generally accepted definition of genocide. One that I found reads: 'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'.
Same general idea mo matter where you look. If that's whats happening, then yea. Most people use the term 'genocide in Darfur'. I also don't know how trustworthy the UN really is.

Top
 Profile  
Blanketed_by_snow
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:20 am
Posts: 31
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:51 am 
 

No, they are wrong. It is an "ethnic cleansing" according to the killers, I call that genocide. It is kind of a North tribes vs south tribes kinda thing.
_________________
Bezerko wrote:
You're obviously an inbred Tasmanian who's moved to the US to get jiggy with some Amish folk.

MySanityDoesFly wrote:
I don't care who fucks who, as long as they enjoy it.

Top
 Profile  
firescarredmartyr
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 01, 2003 12:29 am
Posts: 175
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:30 pm 
 

If you use the term "genocide" to describe the waring between two ethnic groups as minimally different as two tribes of the same African country, then you could consider most wars through-out the history of mankind to be "genocidal".

It's merely a buzz word used to draw attention to the situation, not that that's a bad thing though.

Top
 Profile  
MasticateTheNecro
Metal newbie

Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 9:29 pm
Posts: 262
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:19 am 
 

TheJizzHammer wrote:
I think there's one generally accepted definition of genocide. One that I found reads: 'the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group'.
Same general idea mo matter where you look. If that's whats happening, then yea. Most people use the term 'genocide in Darfur'. I also don't know how trustworthy the UN really is.


What would you call the systematic elimination of all humans? It isn't cleansing of a race, political/cultural group, and since it's everybody it wouldn't be national group either. Would it be anthrocide maybe?
_________________
http://thenekrolaef.webs.com

livercage wrote:
..but what did the mind actually mean behind the meaning of pointing out the point...

Top
 Profile  
alexanderthegreat
Metal Barbarian Dinosaur

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 5:34 pm
Posts: 1916
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:27 am 
 

If the UN didn't consider the freaking Rwandan genocide worthy of their best efforts, then I don't see why they would care about the Darfur genocide.

In contrast, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Genocide Intervention Network and Genocide Watch do call it genocide. I'd rather believe the world of experts in genocidal matters than politicians in this matter.
_________________
Hitherto known as... The SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS.
The Cimmerian
The Blog That Time Forgot

Top
 Profile  
kronos116
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:55 pm
Posts: 179
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:10 pm 
 

I recently did a research paper on the whole Darfur shebang, and from what I've read about it I would say that "genocide" is very accurate. Of course, the media is very biased against the pre-dominantly Arab government, and I have also read from less known sources that the African rebels are committing just as many (if not more) atrocities than the Arabs are. While answering this question for myself, I used something my World Cultures teacher said; that the Trans-atlantic slave trade was a form of genocide. The Europeans were trying to gain labor and resources, not purge them from the land, as al-Bashir is apparently trying to do.

Top
 Profile  
Dreadnaught
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:46 am
Posts: 262
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:01 pm 
 

Thanks for the replies, folks.


Personally, the Darfur situation seems rather "genocidal" to me. I think the UN is full o' shite, in this case.
_________________
"Iron--Cold Iron--is master of men all!" --Rudyard Kipling

Top
 Profile  
Resident_Hazard
Possessed by Starscream's Ghost

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:33 pm
Posts: 2563
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:15 am 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
If the UN didn't consider the freaking Rwandan genocide worthy of their best efforts, then I don't see why they would care about the Darfur genocide.

In contrast, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Genocide Intervention Network and Genocide Watch do call it genocide. I'd rather believe the world of experts in genocidal matters than politicians in this matter.



It seems like the UN will do whatever it can to keep out of a conflict. They remind me of the League of Nations leading into World War II. They just sat back and allowed Hitler to take all he wanted with a, "aw, just let him have his fun" kind of attitude, "the last thing we want is another war."

Image
_________________
Check out Opinionhated from Amazon-Kindle

Top
 Profile  
FateMetal
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 8:09 am
Posts: 305
Location: Uganda
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:11 pm 
 

alexanderthegreat wrote:
If the UN didn't consider the freaking Rwandan genocide worthy of their best efforts, then I don't see why they would care about the Darfur genocide.

In contrast, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Genocide Intervention Network and Genocide Watch do call it genocide. I'd rather believe the world of experts in genocidal matters than politicians in this matter.


The UN is the last place to turn to when looking for clarifications on what is a genocide and what is not. Their interpretation obviously varries from ours as has been proved time and again.

Firstly, RWANDA.

And as Resident_Hazard noted the League Of Nations(prehistoric UN)'s initial attitude at the Second World War.

Top
 Profile  
Dreadnaught
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:46 am
Posts: 262
Location: United States of America
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:14 pm 
 

Resident_Hazard wrote:
alexanderthegreat wrote:
If the UN didn't consider the freaking Rwandan genocide worthy of their best efforts, then I don't see why they would care about the Darfur genocide.

In contrast, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Genocide Intervention Network and Genocide Watch do call it genocide. I'd rather believe the world of experts in genocidal matters than politicians in this matter.



It seems like the UN will do whatever it can to keep out of a conflict. They remind me of the League of Nations leading into World War II. They just sat back and allowed Hitler to take all he wanted with a, "aw, just let him have his fun" kind of attitude, "the last thing we want is another war."



Or even earlier, like with Mussolini and Ethiopia.




Quote:
Image



LOL @ that pic...
_________________
"Iron--Cold Iron--is master of men all!" --Rudyard Kipling

Top
 Profile  
metaldazza
Mallcore Kid

Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Posts: 20
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2008 7:42 pm 
 

No one in the UN is going to call it genocide. If they do people will ask why aren't you sending in the troops. But the UN can't send in the troops without the a security council resolution. The UN knows it can't get a security council resolution because China (and thus Russia) will block anything because they have billions invested in the region.

It's simple politics, the UN doesn't want to expose how weak it is. Don't blame the UN, blame China for Darfur, US for Israel, Russia for Iran and the UK for just being pussies.
_________________
New Metal Army - Metal News and UK Gigs

Top
 Profile  
Ritual_Suicide
Metal newbie

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:39 am
Posts: 379
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:00 am 
 

metaldazza wrote:
No one in the UN is going to call it genocide. If they do people will ask why aren't you sending in the troops. But the UN can't send in the troops without the a security council resolution. The UN knows it can't get a security council resolution because China (and thus Russia) will block anything because they have billions invested in the region


This is the best explanation of the cluster-fuck way the world works.

The UN is an organization that was founded not to prevent every war, but to prevent THE war between America and the Soviet Union. If the USSR hadn’t been boycotting the UN, then they could have vetoed the whole Korean War and there would only be one Korea today. The idea that the UN can stop one group from exterminating another weaker group is a little naive. The only was the UN could do that was if it’s had an army strong enough to kick the shit out of anyone it wanted to. Because it doesn’t, it sits on its ass whining at the involved parties to play nice until we come up with a bull-shit way to “resolve” the situation.

Top
 Profile  
Svartedauen
Metal newbie

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 41
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:52 am 
 

Darfur IS a genocide as it fullfils the requirements to be called a genocide: there is a systematic extermination of people, the people that are exterminated are part of a defined ethnic/religious group therefore it is a genocide.
And to people that say it is not genocide because it's ethnic cleansing, what do you think ethnic cleansing is? Ethnic cleansing is just a sub-concept of genocide, just a word used to define genocide along ethnic lines (because complete eradication of a population from land in which they have inhabited for centuries is to be defined as genocide).

Anyway, as many as said the UN will not do anything at all. Due mainly to the political and economical implications with investments in Sudan (ok China is involved in the area with huge sovreign investments, but the US is involved privately in Sudan within the oil sector). Also because of, again as people said, because the UN does not posses the military apparatus to sustain full out conflict in Sudan.
But a point i am surprised people have not touched upon, is how the UN can't and won't do anything because this could potentially have a destabilization effect on the whole of Eastern Africa. Outright war in Sudan would displace a large amount of people that would probably seek refuge in Ethiopia, but these people would mainly be Arab Muslims and that coupled with the recent spillage of suspected Islamist militants from Somalia could ignite in a full scale civil war in Ethiopia (given the rage of Somali people that have seen their country invaded by Ehtiopia and the rather terrible relation between Sudan and Ethiopia). Add to that the still unstable situation in Chad and the growing tensions between the region's people (also due to the displacement of people from Darfur) and also here we have risk of the resuming of the civil war in Chad. Same situation in other parts of the region. So all in all, another reason not to act in Darfur on the UN's side is the fear that war in Sudan could destabilize the whole area and start a chain reacion of wars and civil wars throught central Africa.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beyond Doors and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group