worst genocide/holocaust ever? (explain your answer)

[calpoon]

eh, this thread is too morbid for me. I can't qualify that.

I will just say that I think it will happen again. that it is an inevitable consequence of civilization and the end point of power-mongering, coupled with people trying to cope with a collapse and/or clash of society and economic infastructure. Hitler rightly called it the "final solution" because it's not the the first and only one, but the result of the spread of Facism.

 

[Dixie Dash]

We are?
Then how come at just about every forum I visit on the internet, including this site, I see proponents of nuking the middle east?

Because Genocide/Holocaust is intentionally taking out a race or certain group of people. What is going on in the Middle East is a result of stupid war and feuds. I would not call it a Holocaust but sad nonetheless. If I were in the middle east I'd be taking my ass out of there. My dads over there so I want the war to end as well.

 

[bodie54]

Because Genocide/Holocaust is intentionally taking out a race or certain group of people. What is going on in the Middle East is a result of stupid war and feuds. I would not call it a Holocaust but sad nonetheless. If I were in the middle east I'd be taking my ass out of there. My dads over there so I want the war to end as well.

All the best hopes for your father to make it home safe and sound, Dixie.

I wasn't saying what's going on in Iraq at present is a genocide/holocaust. What I was saying is that there are a disturbing number of people advocating turning it into one.

 

[tubuler]

Genocide ordered by God - When Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan where they laid siege to the city of Jericho. Then they killed every man, woman, and child in the city. Because Yahweh told them to.

 

[bombardier52]

Genocide ordered by God - When Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan where they laid siege to the city of Jericho. Then they killed every man, woman, and child in the city. Because Yahweh told them to.

One city wiped out hardly makes a genocide. I'm certain that is academic to the denizens of said city but I don't think that is an unusual occurance in history.

 

[tartanterrier]

I don't think any genocide can be worse than another,as they are
all terrible.

But the one that affects me most,was probably the one at Dunoon
and that was only 100 women and children.

http://www.dunoon-argyll.co.uk/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Lamont

But any massacre that happens is a terrible tradegy.

 

[Friday on my mind]

The Jewish holocaust because of the industrial modern type of efficencys as outlined by DVC.
I would point out the nazis I beleive sited the american experience with iradicating the natives as a example of what they were trying to do.While bias was obviously involved in both cases as well as other genocides it's important to keep in mind that there were other causes/justifications for the genocides.The american Indians were in the way of american(european settlers) expansion goals and were hindering concepts like "manifest destiny".Even with the Jewish holocaust people like Eichmann were working on efforts to re-settle jews somewhere else.The real goals being in these cases that these people just be gone ,dead or not by any and all means.The unfortunate truth is that since other countries were for the most part uninterested in accepting the jewish immgrants they were stuck in occupied Nazi europe and we know what happened then.In order to understand these things and prevent reoccurences its important IMO to understand how people could see the acts as justifiable.They thought they were doing what was needed to be done for their society's to fulfill the destiny's they thought they should have and were willing to do unbelievable atrocities in the name of such goals.

 

[SBTNW]

But any massacre that happens is a terrible tradegy.

couldn't agree more, tartanterrier.

never the less, depending on the motive, there's some more terrible than others: is not the same thing killing a fly because it's bothering you, or because you enjoy to killing it.

 

[BlueBalls]

Mao was responsible for the deaths of about 50 million people.

 

[Roughneck]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is just a statistic".
An ironic quote - if there ever was one - from Ol' Uncle Joe himself.


I'm sorry, but I find it tasteless (not to mention pointless) to "compare" genocide. To the victims, it makes not a damn bit of a difference.

Just an old soldier's perspective,
R.

 

[Facial_King]

Why rank them?

(Sounds like an idea for a Fox reality show or something)

 

[Magnet]

Definetly Stalin in the Soviet Union. So much of the stuff isnt even recorded so its hard to say how many actually died under his ruling.

 

[DreamSparrow]

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is just a statistic".
An ironic quote - if there ever was one - from Ol' Uncle Joe himself.


I'm sorry, but I find it tasteless (not to mention pointless) to "compare" genocide. To the victims, it makes not a damn bit of a difference.

Just an old soldier's perspective,
R.

Spot on. I think it's downright disgusting to rank the suffering of one people over another. What the fuck is this thread supposed to be -- Genocidal Top Trumps?

I realise you can't stop making polls about everything that pops into your head SBNTW, but please restrict it to the trivial garbage no one's going to get upset about.

Don't you see that the moment one member makes the claim one genocide is the worst, and another person contests the severity of it by comparing it with another, it's as if the anguish and suffering of the first people is being diminished? Would you for example, do the same for rape cases, and start enumerating the number of ways it could have been worse for the victims?

There are limits, even for armchair historians, sitting cosily behind their desks in their comfortable homes. This is deeply unsavoury and insensitive.

 

[Facetious]

I would point out the nazis I beleive sited the american experience with iradicating the natives as a example of what they were trying to do.

Is that an official qualifier? an apology. .what?
If it weren't for the American example,the Halocaust would have never been!
For it was the Americans,yet again,responsible!
For the devil red white and blue made them do it! lol!
Glad that you cleared that up! :bowdown:
At last! We can bring closing to this (all)"most" tragic piece of history.:bowdown:

And the "Canadians" were kind to "The Indians"? lol!

I feel While bias was obviously involved in both cases as well as other genocides it's important to keep in mind that there were other causes/justifications for the genocides.

Uhh. .yeah! ":comfused:"

In order to understand these things and prevent reoccurences its important IMO to understand how people could see the acts as justifiable.

Prevent recurrences ? Here we have an "unsustainable living condition" on the planet and you wish to preserve life?!
You walk not with Ted Turner,Thereza Heinz-"Kerry",Georges Soreohhs,The Bohemian Grovists,The Illuminists . .Bilderburgs & such?:nono:lol!

They thought they were doing what was needed to be done for their society's to fulfill the destiny's they thought they should have and were willing to do unbelievable atrocities in the name of such goals.

and they did,and?


:jester:

 

[deb41]

I think Stalin easily holds the record

 

[tubuler]

One city wiped out hardly makes a genocide. I'm certain that is academic to the denizens of said city but I don't think that is an unusual occurance in history.

Tens of thousands of men, women and children killed because of someones religious ideology isn't genocide? What would you call it then? A whole lotta homocides? A mini-genocide?

 

[sputnikgirl]

Rwanda in '94, because:

-The US didn't have any compelling political or economic interests in Rwanda, so obviously it could care less about intervention.
-The UN couldn't afford another Somalia - a failed intervention might hurt the future of the United Nation's peacekeeping program.
-Ethnic strife and bloodshed in Africa is seen as sad but not unusual and didn't warrant intervention due to racism and steroetypical beliefs.

Unless I missed it, nobody has mentioned it in this thread. A case where the entire world literally turned it's back. It's a part of Bill Clinton's legacy that's conveniently ignored.

 

[meesterperfect]

Rwanda in '94, because:

-The US didn't have any compelling political or economic interests in Rwanda, so obviously it could care less about intervention.
-The UN couldn't afford another Somalia - a failed intervention might hurt the future of the United Nation's peacekeeping program.
-Ethnic strife and bloodshed in Africa is seen as sad but not unusual and didn't warrant intervention due to racism and steroetypical beliefs.

Unless I missed it, nobody has mentioned it in this thread. A case where the entire world literally turned it's back. It's a part of Bill Clinton's legacy that's conveniently ignored.

I agree to an extent sput, except for the part where you imply that the U.S. is racist because we don't help Africa.
If I recall when Willy sent in the troops, both sides started shooting and killing us, so who's the racists?
plus the trillions that have been given to African countries by the U.S.
over the years.
You see racism there, of course white on black.
I don't.

 

[Member2019]

Ummm, know your history ...

If I recall when Willy sent in the troops, both sides started shooting and killing us, so who's the racists?

Bush Sr. actually sent in the troops. What Bill Clinton decided to do after the US Marines left was his doing, and not UN sanctioned.

My complaint wasn't going in or not. My biggest complaint was the denial of AC-130U gunships for political reasons. That decision was made at the White House.

In reality, the US and UK were heavily involved in blocking Rowanda when it mattered. Many claim it's because of what happened earlier in Mogadishu.

 

[Facetious]

The "worst" genocide could only be reported by those no longer with us. They ceased.

Last Update: May. 15, 2008

For over five years, the most notorious genocide of the twenty-first century has devastated millions of non-combatant civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan. The government of Sudan continues to send its troops and Janjaweed ("devils on horseback") proxy militias to systematically destroy the livelihoods of Darfurians by bombing and burning villages, looting economic resources, and committing crimes against humanity such as murdering, raping, and torturing non-combatant civilians. Intransigence on the part of the Sudanese government prevents the international community from independently verifying mortality statistics, yet most international agencies state that more than 200,000 civilians have died due to . . .

more http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/darfur