I'd like to discuss this theory rationally
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 17:48
VIEWED: 17233
PAGE 8 of 9
Quote:Most genocides fall into the category of "If you're not with me killing X population, you're against me." Meaning, they pay lip service to being "well-defined," but in practice, the people killed by genocide fall very loosely into said definition.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Most genocides are relatively well defined.
So I would have to disagree with you about genocide being well-defined.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Intent is awfully easy to lie about.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't think that is the intent. Lots of tribal muslims may be getting killed, but it's not because we want to wipe out tribal muslims as a people.
Let's say you DO want to wipe out tribal muslims as a people. Are you going to come out and announce it? Or are you more likely to come out with some excuse to kill tons of tribal muslims?
Genocide is as genocide does.
Yes, some people are silly enough to be honest about their intentions, like Hitler. Look what happened to an honest villain.
There are two types of serial killers. Those who are caught. And those who aren't. What's the difference? The ones who aren't know how to disguise their evil.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looking closer at Frem's article, it's an exclusive to World Tribune dot com. I can't find that anyone else carried it. I also can't find much documentation about World Tribune dot com, my impression is that they're kind of like prisonplanet.
A number of papers carried the Pakistani notice of death linked to on Fox news, including the Egyptian paper DT said there were screenshots out there.
Yet there's some valid points about the DNA sequencing, plus, how did we even have Osama's DNA on record before sequencing to compare, and how will any of us confirm the sequencing is Osama anyway?
The evidence for both claims, died 2002 or died 2011 is still sparse. Ultimately, I'm starting to believe it's unimportant. No change in stated/observable mission or war direction in the Middle East, heard nothing of a rash of arrests from the intel we got, and you think if we got the network by the balls like we say we'd act fast. Ho hum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony,
The intent is clear: we want to dominate the middle east and lower the reproduction rate of muslims to make sure they don't overwhelm europeans, or more specifically, probably, israelis. We intend to do this by controlling their economy and their political and religious leadership. This has been stated many many times, by a large number of globalist neocons and neolibs, it's not really in dispute.
So yes, you would be correct if you were to say that we do not intend a "total eradication" .... yet, of the kind that was carried out in rwanda or cambodia or poland.
Still if you read all the points of the UN convention article II, this very clearly fits the definition.
In the real world, genocides almost never succeed is destroying a race or culture, but they do kill millions of people. Our target, is, of course, not "islam" but "radical islam" which we want to replace with "moderate islam" which we intend to invent. It's just like regular islam except it's willing to take out a subprime mortgage.
Niki,
You are truly very tiresome. Why on Earth would I care about changing the minds of people here, even if I thought it was possible? I'm here to discuss issues with people I consider to be informed, more informed than me mostly, and sometimes to pose questions to the board at large. Often outliers and lurkers have interesting input, as i pointed out earlier: most of the most interesting threads have been posted by lurkers.
The partisan arguments and focus on minutae like MSM focal talking points, etc. are about the purest waste of time there is. Thank you for giving me a reason to disregard purple text. Please feel free to disregard any green text you see.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geez, DT, you and your crazy eugenics theory.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I honestly don't understand how the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars AREN'T a genocide.
Specific religious or ethnic group targeted, check.
Significant numbers dead, check.
Mention of religious crusades from invading leadership, check.
Quote:
Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, 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."
And those are only the points I can reliably confirm.
It's not Rwanda levels yet, but it can still be considered a genocide if the weaker side fights back (or if some of the genocided party's practices are morally questionable). It's like saying the Native Americans weren't genocided because they shot pioneers with bows and arrows. Or that enslaving western coast Africans wasn't a genocide because the separate tribes turned each other in.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I may: I think the trouble with calling it a genocide for some folks is that there is no policy to wipe out, or remove Muslims from the earth or from even the middle east. I'm impressed with DT's argument which he posted months ago on the subject. It's a deeply troubling statistical analysis, the sort of thing at which DT excels.
I doubt that Anthony would have any trouble with a phrase like "de facto genocide." Intent is important to people. Some folks get a lot of juice from thinking TPTB really intend genocide. "Oh yeah! They're pure, soulless evil!" Some folks, not so much. Are some within the ranks of our armed forces genocidal? Oh, to be sure. But is it a "final solution?"
Can we get back to why indications that OBL died 5 years ago are more compelling than the indications that he died last week? The more that comes out around his death--the wife, the videos, etc.--just means more and more people have to have been completely bought off.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Acceptable!
Now to go find that mirror-portal thing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Can we get back to why indications that OBL died 5 years ago are more compelling than the indications that he died last week? The more that comes out around his death--the wife, the videos, etc.--just means more and more people have to have been completely bought off.
Exactly. Who benefits from such a conspiracy? Obama? What possible motive could the GOP have for keeping a lid on a dead OBL for the past 5 years, only to keep mum now and help Obama's reelection chances?
To believe in this conspiracy means you have to, by default, believe in even LARGER conspiracies - the Dems and Rethugs are working together with the Rothschilds, etc., to create a New World Order, and so on, ad infinitum.
And if all of that were true, if they already bought off so many people - so many HIGHLY POWERFUL WORLD LEADERS - then do you really think you're the one who's going to blow the lid off this thing, from your little keyboard in your little life in your little town?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course not, by simple virtue of the fact that:
1) The NWO theory clearly has it's place in the public awareness, and there is no amount of shouting from rooftops that can expose it. It's already pretty much there for the seeing. Unless we all think those corporate lobbyists just want to be friends, foreign powers aren't letting America be their meatshields while they buff up their own economies, and the industrial military complex really just wants to distribute lollipops.
2) What do the power factions care if people can see the corruption? They have money, power, and most of us are their monkey slaves. They only care if they think you threaten their power base, in which case your servers are confiscated or you are arrested on trumped up charges and kept in legal limbo for years until you break down. Hi Julian Assange!
Or they kill you, but those are pretty rare because killings automatically raise awareness and suspicions.
Large conspiracies don't have to be organized. They can even be composed of numerous smaller elements competing for power, or in whispers of ideas or tactics learned in backroom deals. Here and there, some agenda will move forward and the world will shift down the path of destruction a little more.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME