• Tja@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Doesn’t even the un define this as genocide? I thought it was not controversial anymore calling it that…

    • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      There was a while where it obviously met and exceeded the definition in the UN Genocide Convention, but a lot of people refused to acknowledge it might be a genocide because the UN had not yet declared it to be one. The UN is notoriously slow at that kind of thing, though, especially when a powerful country wants them to be slow.

      • Vupware@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wait, what do you mean by “there was a while”? The goals of the blue people is still to genocide, isn’t it?

    • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      western libs are smarter than global consensus, bear in mind. really, what it is, is they’ll say anything so long as the money keeps moving.

      the reality is of course that terrorism is any act that is intended to modify public behavior through widespread fear. here’s some examples of terror states:

      • America
      • Russa
      • Israel
      • India
      • Iran

      i’m POSITIVE there’s more, and i’d even be willing to hear arguments that every nation today is either a terror state or subservient to a terror state.