Well that and one's ability to leave, I am sure there are plenty of Americans that would leave if they had the option (in fact I happen to know quite a few who do).
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Reprieve says it will be pressing for criminal prosecutions against the CIA agents alleged to have carried out the torture.
Last week it emerged that the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the torture of detainees held by the US.
Binyam Mohammed was born in Ethiopia but was given leave to remain in the UK after seeking asylum in 1994. Seven years later, he travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan where the Americans allege that he underwent training in firearms and explosives. In 2002, he was arrested by Pakistani immigration officials at Karachi airport on his way back to the UK. He says he was then taken to Morocco and tortured for 18 months, including having his penis slashed, before being sent to Guantanamo, where he still remains.
Mr Stafford-Smith added in his letter: "As you know, the only purported basis for the US holding Mr Mohammed is an allegation that he is an ('illegal') enemy combatant. Five-and-a-half years after his initial seizure, he is not currently charged in a military commission, and he has never been offered a fair trial. As you are aware, Mr Mohammed was rendered to Morocco by the CIA and tortured for 18 months in a way that was medieval.
"There can be no rational dispute that this is true. We have the CIA flight records which precisely match Mr Mohammed's version of events. He has nothing to do with Morocco, and he was not taken there by the CIA for a Club Med vacation."
That doesn't match what the corporate slut in the white house said "The United States does not torture"
It is everyones responsibility to bring this system crashing down NOW. Everyone must do their part (within the confines of their own personal conscience). Not to participate in ridding the United States of this power structure is treason and high crimes against the people of the United States. What are you going to do?
"The moon that I love clears a path through the pines And guides a stream right to the bamboo gate."Poems by Zen Master Hsu Yun: Series I
Posts: 795 | Location: western slope, northern sierra | Registered: 18 April 2003
I would say, judging by your lack of patriotic support, that neither of you is suited to live in the USA.
I didn't know torture and murder and destroying our constitution was patriotic. Perhaps, if you want torture so much, you should go live under the Saddam Hussein's regime. Perhaps you should have worked for the Japanese or Hitler or Pol Pot? Word has it, they liked torture too. If you like torture so much, we think you should find your own hell where everyone tortures and murders. I think then you'll finally be happy.
As we've heard, George Washington made SPECIFIC orders NOT to torture the enemy (English Soldiers). And we had the enemy on our soil. One minute you're calling for invasion of Iraq because they torture and followed by your president torturing people.
That's un-american. YOU CAN LEAVE with your blood and torturous way. YOU LEAVE! We're the real Americans because REAL Americans don't torture.
Would also say it's kind of silly to cast oneself or anyone else in such a hyperbolic & jingoistic fashion.
Most every country on earth has things in its history and way of doing things of which it can be proud and most every one has some really shameful history.
Except maybe Bhutan. Can't think of any genocidal acts they've inflicted. There are probably a few others small countries that are relatively blameless.
How often have we heard that we're terrorists for wanting to pull troops out?
I am going out on a limb here... But I would say NEVERZERONADA
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Most every country on earth has things in its history and way of doing things of which it can be proud and most every one has some really shameful history.
Except maybe Bhutan. Can't think of any genocidal acts they've inflicted. There are probably a few others small countries that are relatively blameless.
Not sure I understand you points Brent. Does Bhutan have anything to be proud of? And they have things to be shameful of in their history? And does blameless only mean with respect to other countries and thus internal democides are OK?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: RR posted: "Does Bhutan have anything to be proud of?"
Obviously a rhetorical question.
I don't think so Brent. I just asked for clarification from you because it seemed a little confusing your points. Maybe you can enlighten me at least as to what Bhutan is special for and how they avoided the problems of Patriotism that so many other countries have fallen into.
When you moving there? I am sure the requirements are less than Canada.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I never said they've avoided the problem of patriotism.
What is your ability at reading comprehension?
Honestly, Rutherford, you crack me up. Your posts are a never-ending onslaught of unintentional mirth.
I mention an entire country about which it seems you have little or no knowledge, and you respond by asking if there's anything in the entire country to be proud of.
The Lhotshampas say they are victims of ethnic cleansing and accuse the Bhutanese government of torture and genocide.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Originally posted by BrentBoz-Hell: I never said they've avoided the problem of patriotism.
True enough. But since Patriotism is a negative thing and that Bhutan has nothing to shameful of in its history then I wonder if they should be shameful of their patriotism (if they have it).
quote:
What is your ability at reading comprehension?
Fair to middlen. I just wonder about your ability to support your assumptions and to explain yourself.
quote:
Honestly, Rutherford, you crack me up. Your posts are a never-ending onslaught of unintentional mirth.
Glad I can be of service to you. Now if you can answer the questions maybe we can discuss them.
quote:
I mention an entire country about which it seems you have little or no knowledge, and you respond by asking if there's anything in the entire country to be proud of.
Thanks for the laugh!
Certainly, because if they have no patriotism or nothing to be ashamed of then why not explain how you come up with your conclusions. I hear the birds fish may fill us in with some details.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
RR posted: "Certainly, because if they have no patriotism or nothing to be ashamed of then why not explain how you come up with your conclusions/"
This is what I'm talking about: just a few sentences ago you agreed that I did not say Bhutan does not have patriotism, and a few seconds later you insinuate that I said that.
Anyway, it'd be like asking: does the USA have anything to be proud of? A silly question that could only be asked by a patriot.
This has made Bhutan as one of the highest per capita refugee generators in the world. As on March 2001, approximately 98,886 Bhutanese refugees were living in seven refugee camps in eastern Nepal managed by the UNHCR.
quote:
Bhutan as a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic society is self-evident. However, the government argues that "Pluralism is only practical for a larger country where a diversity of customs, traditions and culture enriches that nation. A small country like Bhutan cannot afford the luxury of such diversity which may impede the growth of social harmony and unity among its people". In the name of national integration, the government implemented various racial and discriminatory policies aimed at forceful homogenisation of multi-ethnic society. This 'Drukpanization' policy was designed to annihilate the culture, religion and language of Lhotshampas, Sharchhops and other minority ethnic, religious and linguistic groups.
I am just not OK with your Supporting such evil empire as the Bhutan. They make Cuba and Venezula look inviting
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Sako: it seems the Bhutan gov't may have evicted Nepali speakers- forced them to move out. The Bhutan government has disputed this, they say most of them have left for Nepal because of better welfare spending.
So, "peaceful" in that it did not involve mass killing (or, maybe not any killing at all).
As contrasted with, for example, the USA in Indochina. Or the Philippines. Or against the First Nations of our continent.
My understanding of genocide was the legal definition. I was unaware that we could create our own interpretations and descriptions of what genocide is. I had not thought to describe genocide as forcing someone to move away to another country. As you had said, they may have evicted them, though that is disputed.
The accepted description: "the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
I have noticed the term genocide tossed inappropriately into several conversations and it does seem to be a word that invokes passionate discourse.
Posts: 25 | Location: Heaven | Registered: 09 December 2007
My understanding of genocide was the legal definition. I was unaware that we could create our own interpretations and descriptions of what genocide is. I had not thought to describe genocide as forcing someone to move away to another country. As you had said, they may have evicted them, though that is disputed.
The accepted description: "the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
I have noticed the term genocide tossed inappropriately into several conversations and it does seem to be a word that invokes passionate discourse.
Well I suppose based on this definition, Brent forgot to include Iraq, and our genocide there.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Sako posted: "The accepted description: "the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
I have noticed the term genocide tossed inappropriately into several conversations and it does seem to be a word that invokes passionate discourse."
You're correct, Sako. I should not have used the word. Bhutan has not committed genocide.
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
quote:
In the name of national integration, the government implemented various racial and discriminatory policies aimed at forceful homogenisation of multi-ethnic society. This 'Drukpanization' policy was designed to annihilate the culture, religion and language of Lhotshampas, Sharchhops and other minority ethnic, religious and linguistic groups
quote:
More than 125,000 Bhutanese people, nearly a sixth of the kingdom's total population of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
This is the salient point in this clause of the description of genocide.
I regret the displacement, for whatever reason, of the Nepali speakers, but it is not shown that the Bhutan government has sought their physical destruction.
The Bhutan gov't claims they're doing pretty good on Nepali welfare.
This is the salient point in this clause of the description of genocide.
I regret the displacement, for whatever reason, of the Nepali speakers, but it is not shown that the Bhutan government has sought their physical destruction.
The Bhutan gov't claims they're doing pretty good on Nepali welfare.
read the clause again.
Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Note: destroy in whole or in part Note: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS
quote:
killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,
Alright, not alot of killing.
Note: a comma
quote:
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Ding Ding Ding Ding. Note: More than 125,000 Bhutanese people, nearly a sixth of the kingdom's total population of approximately 782,548 have been forced to leave or forcibly evicted from the country by the Government.
GEN.... O....CIDE
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Loganthor: I'd say you need to learn reading comprehension. Everything you're quoting cites a deliberate physical harm (destruction) being imposed on the target group. Physical harm in terms of bodily harm.
No offense Brent. But you are Wrong.
It only list Physical harm as ONE possible outcome of Genocide. Unless the last option "forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" invokes "physical harm" in your definition.
The forced removal of an ethic group IS Genocide BY the UN definition
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Well, that's not in the definition that Sako quoted. The definition Sako quoted that says intent to destroy the ethnic group must be part of the action. There are many ways to destroy the group (as included in the definition from the UN). Bhutan has not attempted to destroy this group.
The accepted description: "the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
What does the last line say?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Actually, as regards the US involvements in Indochina & the Philippines, it could be said that these were not genocide, rather "just" ("only"?) mass murder of millions in Indochina and hundreds of thousands in the Philippines.
Quite possibly mass murder of thousands in the current crime in Iraq (although most casualties there are attributed to sectarian violence).
Of course the actions taken by USA against First Nations often were genocide.
Bhutan did not transfer children of the targeted group to another group, nor did it attempt to prevent births within the group.
Do you agree that the last line in the UN definition of genocide does not imply physical harm as a means to an end?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Loganthor: the ideas of either preventing births within the group or transferring the children of the group to another group would result, eventually, in the physical destruction of the ethnic group (eventually it would not exist).
But Bhutan did not engage in these practices, anyway.
But Bhutan did not engage in these practices, anyway
I didn't say they did. I used it as the most benign example of a non murder technique that serves the same ends as listed in the UN definition.
What I am claiming is:
quote:
“deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
That mass expulsions (conditions of life) of nearly a 1/6 of their population consisting of particular minority ethic groups serves that same means as murdering 1/6 of their population. Either way, the minority ethic group is no longer in Bhutan.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
qoute: "That mass expulsions (conditions of life) of nearly a 1/6 of their population consisting of particular minority ethic groups serves that same means as murdering 1/6 of their population."
You are saying that kicking someone out of the country is the same as murdering that person (or people)?
It *might* serve a similar purpose as far as Bhutan's gov't is concerned (the people are no longer on hand), but there is certainly a major difference as to the condition of the targeted group, obviously.
So if the USA deports someone that's the same as the USA meting out physical destriction of that person?
It also disrupts the society of these victimized groups. Thus death rates are increased and children often become the victims. If we use the technique that Lancet uses to determine "excessive" deaths then we would see and increase in this 125,000 victims. And since childhood deaths and increased infant mortality increases during the expulsion then by definition we have now concluded a genocide.
Yes the USA did also do genocide on the Native populations at certain times. And when they forced the natives off their land it became genocide also. But we are talking history, do we really want to get into the history of Bhutan?
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
Genocide: The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Loganthor quoted: "Ethnic Cleansing: The elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration."
Loganthor: you do not know how to read (comprehend), AT ALL
It says GENOCIDE ***OR*** FORCED MIGRATION, as either one would constitute ethnic cleansing. It specifically points up the difference as to genocide versus forced migration.
Therefore, Bhutan could be guilty of imposing forced migration but not genocide.
Loganthor: you do not know how to read (comprehend), AT ALL
LOL.. I take you didn't bother to read pass the qoute remarks. Your a headline reader.
The two posts are the legal arguements for attaching "ethic cleansing" terminogly to the section mentioned in the UN definition.
since your a qoute reader
quote:
The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here) "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide. Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:
Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.
Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.
Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.
Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.
The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.
A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Key Terms
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Note column titled: Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Okay, again quoting their full definition: "Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here) "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
------------------------------------------------
What Bhutan (possibly) did does not meet these criteria. Everything here is based either on intent to destroy the group and/or actual attempts to destroy the group.
All Bhutan (possibly) did was force them to move to another location. No intent or attempt to destroy.
Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights, a burgeoning refugee population resulting from mass expulsions of defenceless civilians from their homes and the existence in Serbian and Montenegrin controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of "ethnic cleansing", which is a form of genocide,
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Really ironic in that what Bhutan did does not include EITHER element
How do you figure that?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Interesting how you continually cite things that help the other side in the argument, Loganthor. That is a symptom of what diagnosis?
It is called fair and balanced and transparant. Foreign Concept?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
1) Mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy"
2) Physical element (with conditions of carrying out the intent to destroy listed as a,b,c,d,e)
Genocide is defined as being the intent to destroy a group and both the mental and physical conditions pertaining to the intent to destroy must be met for the definition to hold.
Bhutan had and has no intent to destroy these people. All Bhutan (possibly) did was forced relocation. So Bhutan did not meet either condition.
There is a reason that forced relocation is differentiated from genocide in these UN documents, that being that forced relocation does not necessarily contain the intent to destroy.
Bhutan Intent is to cleanse Bhutan of ethic minorities
Bhutan is Physically expelling the ethic minorities
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
That's called "forced relocation", which according to the UN documents you've quoted is different from genocide.
Forced relocation....Ethic cleasing... mass expulsion, tomato - tomoto.
quote:
Is Darfur in Bhutan?
Darfur is the example of the insanity of the UN. That UN is not holding up it's chartered responsibility. For according to the UN, Darfur is not committing genocide either.
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
If you separated all the males from all the females, then in a few decades you could bring a entire race to an end without killing a soul, so genocide does not have to involve killing anybody. Sterilisation would achieve the same effect.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
Sue N. postwed: "If you separated all the males from all the females, then in a few decades you could bring a entire race to an end without killing a soul, so genocide does not have to involve killing anybody. Sterilisation would achieve the same effect."
Very true, Sue. The deal, however, is that such an idea as you've just expounded is covered under the genocide provisions of the UN definition, which Loganthor has so graciously provided (in that the idea of preventing procreation amongst the group is covered).
Loganthor and I have agreed that Bhutan did not take any measures to inhibit procreation amongst the targeted group. What has baffled me is that Loganthor has agreed that this has not happened, and that active destruction (killing) of the group has not happened, but continued to use "genocide" to describe the situation.
I experienced a bit of frustration as Sako provided a document and then Loganthor referenced the document, but Loganthor kept calling it genocide when the document clearly said it did not qualify as such.
Which is why GOP hates lawyers: because lawyers can comprehend the written word.
Can we agree that Bhutan is engaged in Ethic cleasing of it minority population?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Yes, I agree that it is likely that that is what has occurred, Loganthor.
Ok then... Man I need a cigerette, was it good for you....
Well since I am unable to find a coherent message from the UN on whether ethic cleansing constitutes Genocide. They said it was in Bosnia but not Darfur, I guess I will have to wait and see if and when the UN starbuck’s can or will decide to update their definition
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
If Oregon was it's own country and felt the ethic group known as portlanders were negitive. They could kill them all, the group would cease to exist or oregon could deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part by relocating them to Seattle. The ethic group known as portlanders having been forced to relocate from portland to seattle would cease to exist as ethic group of portlanders, time would eventually make them whatever seattle people are. Although I question who is worst portland or seattle people.
Lhotshampa means people residing in the south. They are an ethic group in Bhutan of former Nepali settlers. If the the government relocates them to the East, West or North are they still the Ethic group that resides in the South?
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
You are saying that they might change the name of their group, which would be tantamount to having had genocide inflicted upon them? Please.
Are you have trouble with the entire definition?
quote:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.