I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I’m not totally clear on this one.
First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).
Bosnia genocide I don’t think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn’t started to do genocide.
East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn’t a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.
Bangladesh: I don’t think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?
WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can’t argue with that one.
one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.
I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I’m not totally clear on this one.
First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).
Bosnia genocide I don’t think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn’t started to do genocide.
East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn’t a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.
Bangladesh: I don’t think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?
WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can’t argue with that one.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.