Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Theory and hypotheticals.

  • 10-09-2004 10:27am
    #1
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭


    I was wondering what your views were on measuring atrocities. For example genocide, should one take into account the size of the population or the proportion of the population wiped out.
    Is the extermination of 3million ppl which represents say 30% of a population worse than the annialation of 1million who represent 90% of a population?
    Do you understand what I'm getting at, usually I'd say the one where more ppl died, but when you are talking about genocide, an attempt to wipe out an ethnic group, the circumstance where 90% of the population is killed has a more devastating effect does it not?

    Views, opinions?


Comments

  • #2
    Liberal001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Liberal001


    Maybe we should, because it seems America wanted to react to genocide that happened 10 years ago by invading Iraq and using it as an excuse, but it's happening NOW, in Sudan and they want....sanctions (yawn)

    Tho I can understand I'm sure if they went in there, or Europe did, there would be protests, theres always a prat out there ready to pick up a plackard even if it's to protest against saving lives.

    Really tho you can't measure it like that it's not right, once there is an intention to wipe out a race we should be in there like a shot, that European Rapid Reaction force costs money, let's use it!


  • #3
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,577 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genocide - "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

    Absolute scale and percentages do count. I don't know what those limits are, but I thinks it's one of those "I know it when I see it things".

    While Omagh was deadly (29 dead), the assassination campaign by loyalists against Catholics (or random Joe punter) was certainly along the lines of being genocidal, but probably not quite genocide (~700 deaths over 30 years).


  • #4
    sliabh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,011 ✭✭✭sliabh


    How bad an atrocity is really seems to be a function of the media attention it gets. China and Tibet is a good example.

    Everyone has heard of the plight of the Tibetan people and their culture and thinks it's a terrible thing. But how many people know of the people of East Turkistan (Xinjang to the Chinese)? It's another non-chinese people (the Uyghurs) who were invaded by communist chinese (in 1949) and are having their culture threatened by widespread immigration.

    Maybe the people of East Turkistan need to get a charismatic leader with some funny headgear.


Advertisement