PityPityBangBang@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 13:09
nextcollapse
The military industrial complex is become a personal pot for one man’s revenge piss.
ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl
on 30 Mar 18:32
collapse
It has been for a long time - see George W Bush going after his daddy’s enemies. That dumb cunt said as much during a press conference. He didn’t like Iraq because his daddy didn’t like them. Gave up huge national treasure and lives to go into Iraq for non-existent “wmds”. The US/Israel are a global problem and should be dealt with through a global response and boycott.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 13:11
nextcollapse
So genocide? You want to start a genocide? I mean at this point you could just say that and still remain President. I’m sure Mike Johnson already has an excuse locked and loaded.
I feel like there needs to be a word for intentionally killing mass numbers of civilians that captures the gravity of the crime, without resorting to using the word genocide. Genocide should be reserved for actual attempts to remove certain genetic lines from the gene pool, which includes going after the diaspora, the way the Nazis did with Jews in WW2.
If someone rounded you, your family and all your extended family up and put you in captivity. Sterilized you but otherwise took care of everyone feeding and even providing them medical access when needed. Even without murdering a single person that’s genocide.
Cultural genocide which is just as serious. Is something that the Chinese government is heavily invested in with their one China policy. Purposely targeting any group with the goal of its elimination whether it’s the Jews the Muslims the First Nations peoples, the blacks the Indians, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians that has been going for more than a half a century. It doesn’t matter how large the group is if you target them or their cultures with the intent of eliminating them that is genocide. Murder is not required.
Exactly. The word is getting used interchangeably with mass murder now, which isn’t correct. I think the reason for this is that the word genocide has a nastier connotation than any of the alternatives, and people want to use the most viscerally impactful word they can to attack the mass murderers.
There is unfortunately a lot of overlap. When it comes to genocide, groups tend to be rather large. Even a bit of a mass. And most don’t have the time, patience or resources to terminate them without murder. So it is understandable.
When it comes to Trump and American conservatives. They are genocidal. If you’re a Democrat they want to target and eliminate you. Even if they don’t murder you. Gay? They want you gone. Trans? Ditto. Black? Ahyup. Muslim? You betcha. Jew that isn’t financing or enabling them? Get to safety.
What trump is doing in Iran might technically not be genocide, yet. But we do have some good words for it. War crimes.
What you mention with the way the Trump administration treats minorities, attempting to shunt them out of society without directly killing them for the most part, is another category that maybe needs a more appropriately visceral word so as not to be lumped in with the more literal genocide described in your previous comment.
Just because something isn’t genocide doesn’t mean it isn’t a horrible crime. It doesn’t even mean it’s not as bad as genocide. But we don’t have other words that sound as bad, so we use the wrong word and muddy the issues.
Shunting or excluding is a fairly sanitizing term. If you want to exclude/eliminate people from a society they depend on to survive. Simply based on who they are. Even if you ignorantly never think about that or the logistics of it. Just wanting them gone. It’s effectively genocide all the same.
Bigotry is having prejudiced thoughts against a group as an individual. Genocide is when you act on those thoughts as a society.
I disagree with this. Redefining genocide as “acting on bigoted thoughts as a society” is a redefinition of the word. It’s also very broad, to the point of almost meaninglessness.
Obviously, words only mean anything to the extent that use them, so genocide may come to mean exactly what you describe. But when that comes to pass, the word genocide will necessarily have lost its bite, which will ironically defeat the purpose of its redefinition.
It’s broad. But not to the point of meaninglessness. To the point of inclusiveness. And that’s meaningful.
I’m definitely coming at this from a more Anarchist/libertarian mindset so others not quite understanding is completely understandable. But ask yourself this. How did all the things we commonly accept as genocides, Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. How did it start?
What made them genocides. Was it the speed, was it the brutality? Or was it simply that these groups were targeted to be excluded and eliminated from society? How slowly must one strangle a culture or group for it to be acceptable? Germany did theirs in only a few years. Israel has been at theirs for decades. So does that make Israel’s acceptable? Because they’re going slower with it overall. Granted they’ve greatly increased their Pace in the last couple years. But the genocide didn’t even start in this last decade. It was always a genocide.
I don’t disagree that bigotry and marginalization can and do lead to genocide. But they are not themselves genocide. It’s just a semantic thing, not a way to excuse bigotry. To the extent that this argument appears to excuse bigotry, it just underscores my point that the broadening of the definition of genocide stems from a desire to find appropriately strident language to describe bigotry and murder that is not genocide by the original definition.
Genocides that don’t include an attempt to exterminate a genetic line are not genocide. They’re something else; maybe something just as bad, maybe something worse, but something else.
I’d say we agree more than we disagree. But that we should probably agree to disagree on this point. The legal definition, which is what people are largely going to go by. Only lists specific categories. Fair enough. I’m going to stick by the categories not being absolute. That the targeting of people just for who they are, for persecution and elimination is the important part. Whether or not they’re in one of the predefined categories, doesn’t change that for me. And that does not dilute downplay or minimize what genocide is. Because genocide isn’t the categories listed there, it’s the actions that have historically taken against those categories in the past.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 14:41
collapse
You want to start a genocide?
We’ve been sponsoring or engaged in genocide in the Middle East since the Nakba of '48. Trump’s just doing it badly.
Retribution for what? Not immediately kowtowing to the wounded narcissist?
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
on 30 Mar 13:25
nextcollapse
Yup, that’s exactly it.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 14:07
nextcollapse
It’s not sound logic, but everyone needs to understand how a narcissist thinks these days.
They end conflicts based on when they think they have an advantage. Prior goals aren’t important just being able to declare victory.
If/when the other side doesn’t stop when you tell them to, the narcissist acts and truly believes a new conflict has just started, and they are now legitimately the victim and not an aggressor.
In their heads, that’s reality.
So yeah, it fucking sucks and shouldn’t be like this.
But a narcissist is in charge of America’s military, and that’s how he thinks. And if no one stops him it’s going to get worse.
No matter what happens in Iran, he’s going to twist it as justification to push further somewhere else. Either because he gets what he wants, or he doesn’t and feels he needs to save face by looking strong somewhere else.
For as long as he’s in office he’ll keep doing this to other countries that have natural resources
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 14:36
nextcollapse
Retribution for what?
Fighting back.
Not immediately kowtowing to the wounded narcissist?
Practically since Reagan, it has been crazy to see how many times the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has done exactly that. The Ayatollah worked with Rumsfeld. He worked with Bush. He worked with Obama. He worked with Trump the first time. He worked with Biden. It’s amazing how many times Iranian leadership could be bought off with the promise of sanctions relief or was willing to turn the other check in the face of a political assassination or a stuxnet computer virus or a frigate seizure.
Whipped dogs rolled over less frequently than the Iranian government, until we straight up started putting bullets into the heads of their senior leadership. Now the only people left to run the country are the real, actual, not-fucking-around revolutionary diehards.
Yep, it’s just baffling how this cat that we backed further and further into the corner started acting out. Who could’ve seen that coming?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 15:59
collapse
He’s used to manhandling 13-year-old girls.
RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 13:20
nextcollapse
Another week, another round of empty threats. What a dumbass.
FrankFrankson@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 13:29
nextcollapse
That is weird I thought we already won the war and Iran was giving big expensive gifts to Trump? Does this mean Trump was lying?!?!?! I am very shocked is something I would say if I recently had awoken from a coma I had been in since 2014.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 13:31
nextcollapse
“A lot of people will say it’s a war crime because mostly these power plants are probably there for the civilian population,” said Clark, who warned “you cannot destroy civilian assets in an effort to put harm on the population.”
He concluded, “Now, if you can show it has a military connection, that’s different. But if it’s simply to put pressure on the government by harming the civilian population, then that’s de jure– that’s a war crime.”
You can tell it’s a war crime… Because of the way it is…
wait until more of America’s fleet is in Cypress for repairs so they only have a bazillion warships and warplanes available instead of 2 bazillion when you dare arrest the Commander in Cheese.
EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 15:31
nextcollapse
If he did that we wouldn’t have an economy because they’d destroy all the fossil fuel infrastructure in the Middle East.
GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone
on 30 Mar 17:34
nextcollapse
It’s almost like none of this is actually all that well thought out and he’s just running his mouth.
It is in the same sentence/tweet as “Iran is very reasonable and we are likely to have a deal”. Israel prefers the genocide and no peace, even if it results in the same for GCC “US allies”. Israel has already vetoed this last weekend the “no attacks on infrasture yet” promise from Trump, and are accused of being responsible for destruction of Kuwait desalination plant.
The only path to a peace deal, is for Iran to demand Trump to say Israel will never receive any US aid (including refueling/targeting support) again/his term, and not be eligible to buy US offensive weapons. Otherwise, talks are just a delay tactic to have Israel do the genocide.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 18:21
nextcollapse
So, murder MORE children. Got it.
If you can’t fuck them, kill them. I guess.
Doomsider@lemmy.world
on 30 Mar 19:09
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
I won’t be surprised if they gonna blow it up themselves. If we can’t have what’s ours than you can’t have it either.
The military industrial complex is become a personal pot for one man’s revenge piss.
It has been for a long time - see George W Bush going after his daddy’s enemies. That dumb cunt said as much during a press conference. He didn’t like Iraq because his daddy didn’t like them. Gave up huge national treasure and lives to go into Iraq for non-existent “wmds”. The US/Israel are a global problem and should be dealt with through a global response and boycott.
So genocide? You want to start a genocide? I mean at this point you could just say that and still remain President. I’m sure Mike Johnson already has an excuse locked and loaded.
I feel like there needs to be a word for intentionally killing mass numbers of civilians that captures the gravity of the crime, without resorting to using the word genocide. Genocide should be reserved for actual attempts to remove certain genetic lines from the gene pool, which includes going after the diaspora, the way the Nazis did with Jews in WW2.
If someone rounded you, your family and all your extended family up and put you in captivity. Sterilized you but otherwise took care of everyone feeding and even providing them medical access when needed. Even without murdering a single person that’s genocide.
Cultural genocide which is just as serious. Is something that the Chinese government is heavily invested in with their one China policy. Purposely targeting any group with the goal of its elimination whether it’s the Jews the Muslims the First Nations peoples, the blacks the Indians, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians that has been going for more than a half a century. It doesn’t matter how large the group is if you target them or their cultures with the intent of eliminating them that is genocide. Murder is not required.
Exactly. The word is getting used interchangeably with mass murder now, which isn’t correct. I think the reason for this is that the word genocide has a nastier connotation than any of the alternatives, and people want to use the most viscerally impactful word they can to attack the mass murderers.
There is unfortunately a lot of overlap. When it comes to genocide, groups tend to be rather large. Even a bit of a mass. And most don’t have the time, patience or resources to terminate them without murder. So it is understandable.
When it comes to Trump and American conservatives. They are genocidal. If you’re a Democrat they want to target and eliminate you. Even if they don’t murder you. Gay? They want you gone. Trans? Ditto. Black? Ahyup. Muslim? You betcha. Jew that isn’t financing or enabling them? Get to safety.
What trump is doing in Iran might technically not be genocide, yet. But we do have some good words for it. War crimes.
What you mention with the way the Trump administration treats minorities, attempting to shunt them out of society without directly killing them for the most part, is another category that maybe needs a more appropriately visceral word so as not to be lumped in with the more literal genocide described in your previous comment.
Just because something isn’t genocide doesn’t mean it isn’t a horrible crime. It doesn’t even mean it’s not as bad as genocide. But we don’t have other words that sound as bad, so we use the wrong word and muddy the issues.
Shunting or excluding is a fairly sanitizing term. If you want to exclude/eliminate people from a society they depend on to survive. Simply based on who they are. Even if you ignorantly never think about that or the logistics of it. Just wanting them gone. It’s effectively genocide all the same.
Bigotry is having prejudiced thoughts against a group as an individual. Genocide is when you act on those thoughts as a society.
I disagree with this. Redefining genocide as “acting on bigoted thoughts as a society” is a redefinition of the word. It’s also very broad, to the point of almost meaninglessness.
Obviously, words only mean anything to the extent that use them, so genocide may come to mean exactly what you describe. But when that comes to pass, the word genocide will necessarily have lost its bite, which will ironically defeat the purpose of its redefinition.
It’s broad. But not to the point of meaninglessness. To the point of inclusiveness. And that’s meaningful.
I’m definitely coming at this from a more Anarchist/libertarian mindset so others not quite understanding is completely understandable. But ask yourself this. How did all the things we commonly accept as genocides, Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. How did it start?
What made them genocides. Was it the speed, was it the brutality? Or was it simply that these groups were targeted to be excluded and eliminated from society? How slowly must one strangle a culture or group for it to be acceptable? Germany did theirs in only a few years. Israel has been at theirs for decades. So does that make Israel’s acceptable? Because they’re going slower with it overall. Granted they’ve greatly increased their Pace in the last couple years. But the genocide didn’t even start in this last decade. It was always a genocide.
I don’t disagree that bigotry and marginalization can and do lead to genocide. But they are not themselves genocide. It’s just a semantic thing, not a way to excuse bigotry. To the extent that this argument appears to excuse bigotry, it just underscores my point that the broadening of the definition of genocide stems from a desire to find appropriately strident language to describe bigotry and murder that is not genocide by the original definition.
Genocides that don’t include an attempt to exterminate a genetic line are not genocide. They’re something else; maybe something just as bad, maybe something worse, but something else.
I’d say we agree more than we disagree. But that we should probably agree to disagree on this point. The legal definition, which is what people are largely going to go by. Only lists specific categories. Fair enough. I’m going to stick by the categories not being absolute. That the targeting of people just for who they are, for persecution and elimination is the important part. Whether or not they’re in one of the predefined categories, doesn’t change that for me. And that does not dilute downplay or minimize what genocide is. Because genocide isn’t the categories listed there, it’s the actions that have historically taken against those categories in the past.
We’ve been sponsoring or engaged in genocide in the Middle East since the Nakba of '48. Trump’s just doing it badly.
Retribution for what? Not immediately kowtowing to the wounded narcissist?
Yup, that’s exactly it.
It’s not sound logic, but everyone needs to understand how a narcissist thinks these days.
They end conflicts based on when they think they have an advantage. Prior goals aren’t important just being able to declare victory.
If/when the other side doesn’t stop when you tell them to, the narcissist acts and truly believes a new conflict has just started, and they are now legitimately the victim and not an aggressor.
In their heads, that’s reality.
So yeah, it fucking sucks and shouldn’t be like this.
But a narcissist is in charge of America’s military, and that’s how he thinks. And if no one stops him it’s going to get worse.
No matter what happens in Iran, he’s going to twist it as justification to push further somewhere else. Either because he gets what he wants, or he doesn’t and feels he needs to save face by looking strong somewhere else.
For as long as he’s in office he’ll keep doing this to other countries that have natural resources
Fighting back.
Practically since Reagan, it has been crazy to see how many times the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has done exactly that. The Ayatollah worked with Rumsfeld. He worked with Bush. He worked with Obama. He worked with Trump the first time. He worked with Biden. It’s amazing how many times Iranian leadership could be bought off with the promise of sanctions relief or was willing to turn the other check in the face of a political assassination or a stuxnet computer virus or a frigate seizure.
Whipped dogs rolled over less frequently than the Iranian government, until we straight up started putting bullets into the heads of their senior leadership. Now the only people left to run the country are the real, actual, not-fucking-around revolutionary diehards.
Yep, it’s just baffling how this cat that we backed further and further into the corner started acting out. Who could’ve seen that coming?
He’s used to manhandling 13-year-old girls.
Another week, another round of empty threats. What a dumbass.
That is weird I thought we already won the war and Iran was giving big expensive gifts to Trump? Does this mean Trump was lying?!?!?! I am very shocked is something I would say if I recently had awoken from a coma I had been in since 2014.
You can tell it’s a war crime… Because of the way it is…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8mjam7KG8
/s
Fucking insane that we’re really at the level where shit is being explained like this to the US president.
Wait is this in addition to the other threats or instead of? I thought we had another deferment on those?
Imagine conducting a war like this.
Alternate headline: “Fat, Old Turd Threatens To Send Toadies To Do Genocide For Him While He Gobbles Big Macs”.
Brilliant idea, Donald.
Because your decision to disrupt global energy markets hasn’t already caused enough problems. Let’s go ahead and make it worse.
I have an idea:
Why don’t they tell him he won the Peace Prize but has to pick it up in person (ID is required to pick up peace prizes)?
Tell him it’s at The Hague.
Then when he gets there slap the cuffs on.
wait until more of America’s fleet is in Cypress for repairs so they only have a bazillion warships and warplanes available instead of 2 bazillion when you dare arrest the Commander in Cheese.
If he did that we wouldn’t have an economy because they’d destroy all the fossil fuel infrastructure in the Middle East.
It’s almost like none of this is actually all that well thought out and he’s just running his mouth.
That’s already in progress.
This is like the 4th promise of destruction.
I pulled that number out my ass but you get the idea
That’s okay. Trumy pulls all his stats out of his, and sometimes it comes out on its own in the middle of a press conference on live TV.
Most likely Iran has a secondary strike capability. Israel and GCC also have desal plants, you know.
It is in the same sentence/tweet as “Iran is very reasonable and we are likely to have a deal”. Israel prefers the genocide and no peace, even if it results in the same for GCC “US allies”. Israel has already vetoed this last weekend the “no attacks on infrasture yet” promise from Trump, and are accused of being responsible for destruction of Kuwait desalination plant.
The only path to a peace deal, is for Iran to demand Trump to say Israel will never receive any US aid (including refueling/targeting support) again/his term, and not be eligible to buy US offensive weapons. Otherwise, talks are just a delay tactic to have Israel do the genocide.
So, murder MORE children. Got it.
If you can’t fuck them, kill them. I guess.
Duur Cubas next! Shits himself
President of peace my ass