Better to be nothing at all than a genocide-denierYou wouldn't make an excellent anything. Oh well.
Better to be nothing at all than a genocide-denierYou wouldn't make an excellent anything. Oh well.
yes, credulity suits youBetter to be nothing at all than a genocide-denier
I don't really see the connection. I haven't asked you to take a particular policy stance on what should be done.You sound like a Fox News host in 2002
they would routinely accuse people of supporting Saddam HusseinI don't really see the connection. I haven't asked you to take a particular policy stance on what should be done.
And I'm not accusing you of anything.they would routinely accuse people of supporting Saddam Hussein
Ok, more to the point they would grandstand with "why won't ____ condemn Saddam Hussein?" which carries the same implication.And I'm not accusing you of anything.
Something that can easily be cleared up by condemning the person in question, due to them being a pretty bad dude.Ok, more to the point they would grandstand with "why won't ____ condemn Saddam Hussein?" which carries the same implication.
Pointless. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're so comfortable with a zeitgeist that led to war.Something that can easily be cleared up by condemning the person in question, due to them being a pretty bad dude.
"Not taken a position"? Who're you trying to fool? You've spent dozens of posts dismissing evidence & offering limp excuses for why we should assume it's not happening.Wrong.
I have simply not chosen to take a position on the matter and presented the opposing argument-- the negative case. Because that's the one you aren't anywhere near as likely to see.
Yes. Unless you want to call agnosticism "technically a position"."Not taken a position"?
Agnosticism is a position. Applied to this case, it would be the conclusion that we cannot really know if a genocide is occurring. A conclusion I and most others here consider laughable.Yes. Unless you want to call agnosticism "technically a position".
KAgnosticism is a position. Applied to this case, it would be the conclusion that we cannot really know if a genocide is occurring. A conclusion I and most others here consider laughable.
k
Yes, very good hypothetical question, Mr. President sir. What if the world were exactly as it is?
edit: and weirdly enough, I don't recall any posts by you in the 21 page thread on Israel/Palestine that has been up for awhile. But I do recall a post by you in another thread defending Labour Friends of Israel for having a singular focus on ineffectual rocket attacks while Israel was demolishing residential towers with bombs. Since you're not a genocide denier, I'm sure you'll now recognize the Israeli genocide of Palestinian Arabs just as a point of clarification. As CM156 has indicated, it's pretty easy to do.
It's not clear to me what you're looking for. You want us to say that the genocide that Israel is committing is bad?*crickets*
Not asking you. Asking the guy who made a big deal about claiming not to be a genocide denier and is silent when it comes to Israel.It's not clear to me what you're looking for. You want us to say that the genocide that Israel is committing is bad?
Atrocity yes, genocide, not so sure.Not asking you. Asking the guy who made a big deal about claiming not to be a genocide denier and is silent when it comes to Israel.
Here's a question for you, though, since you seem to want one: Agent Orange in Vietnam, genocide or not?
Which stage is that in your schema of genocide denial? But that seems like a fair assessment, especially if you're not an expert on the topic. The crucial point seems to be that the people responsible for policy regarding defoliants were both aware of dioxin's horrific toxicity to humans as well as employed several multiplies of what was necessary to accomplish their goals related to killing plants. Arguably just the widespread use of defoliants by itself would have been enough to constitute genocide as the intent was to force people out of the jungle and into cities by destroying the foundations of their way of life and food supply. The monstrous birth defects that continue to this day may not even be necessary to make the case. It is very good that Vietnam won that war despite the horrific casualties.Atrocity yes, genocide, not so sure.