Yes, in the sense of wild exaggeration and outright fabrication for Islamist propaganda purposes, aggressively put around by the anti-Christian fanatics of the neoconservative movement, and regurgitated by their cowed, credulous, bone idle courtiers in the media.
How many of Syria's Christians, Shi'ites, Alawites, Druze and others will die if these "protestors" succeed? All of them, that's how many. That is why the neocons and the present Israeli Government want that success. There can never be too many dead Christians for them.
Please could you supply some links to evidence that Srebrenica was either a fabrication or a wild exaggeration?
ReplyDeleteThe argument against intervention in Syria is simple-- it's none of our business.
I am not sure we really need to get involved in a mass murder denial controversy.
What was exaggerated or fabricated was the sole victimhood of the Bosniak Muslims.
ReplyDeleteWe are still trapped in the fantasy of them as whiter than white, the Croats as sort of all right, and the Serbs as pure evil. It was not like that. And it is not like that.
Look out for the Sunnis (again - funny, that) as whiter than white, the Christians as sort of all right, and the Alawites as pure evil. It is already starting.
The fabrication was of any state or government involvement in either the deaths of Serbs around Srebrenica or the subsequent deaths of Muslims there. Any evidence of that should go to the ICTY. None ever has.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the minimum number of deaths for a "genocide"?
I take your points-- I do not doubt that anyone with a half-decent grasp of events recognises that Serbian atrocities were reported much more than Bosnian or Croatian war crimes.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, this does not mean that the Srebrenica massacre was in any way exaggerated or fabricated. I think most people are intelligent enough to acknowledge that it was just the most brutal atrocity of a war with atrocities from all sides.
As for Syria, I am under no illusions about either the rebels or the government but if a select group of 12%(Alawites) lords it over the rest of the population then it comes as no surprise that they eventually become unpopular.
It is interesting how the Iranian uprising in 2009-2010 was dismissed by such luminaries as George Galloway as the work of the pampered middle-classes. The Syrian revolt would appear to be powered by the working classes, with the Damascus middle-class and the Alawite ruling elite staying loyal to the government. In theory, luminaries such as George Galloway should be sticking up for the oppresses masses but....
Anyway, bottom line is that it is none of our business. Best to stay out of it as neutrals.
When a kangaroo court convicted and executed the Ceausescus for the "genocide" of 34 people (and for daring to throw parties at their house on major holidays), it was only the beginning of dodgy "genocide" convictions: of García Meza Tejada for fully eight people, of Pinochet for under a hundred, of Mengistu in absentia, of his opponents even including aid workers, and of Kambanda without trial, with Milosovic never actually convicted at all.
ReplyDeleteBut the numerical answer to your numerical question would now seem to be -1, according to the ICC and backed up by David Scheffer, Bill Clinton's former Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues. They maintain that "miscegenation" is an act of genocide. Not merely that rape can itself be a war crime; who would argue with that? But that the production of a mixed-"blood" child is in itself, and at least potentially with or without coercion, the specific offence of genocide.
Srebrenica was not genocide. That is why I use the term 'massacre' instead. Katyn was not genocide, it was a massacre. To say so does not imply that one agrees with the denial or belittlement of the crime which is somtimes expressed by those of an unrepentant Communist and / or extreme Russophile streak.
ReplyDeleteAs for what constitutes a 'genocide', it depends on how many people are in the targeted group. The genocide of Tasmanian aborigines carried out by the British killed less individuals than many battles but it nevertheless wiped out a whole culture and society.
The most successful genocides are often the least remembered.