603
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + +
→Definitions and editorialisation
The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
The UN's historical relationship with genocide is problematic, yes, but their definition is the one that applies for the ICC and any other type of international justice. The US believes that Darfur fits the UNs definition of genocide; other people disagree. Just like every act of killing a person is not murder in the first degree (it could be murder two, manslaughter, etc)not eevry act of mass murder is, LEGALLY, genocide. One could agree or disagree with the UN's call to not invoke the Charter at this point, but that does not invalidate the Charter's definition.[[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 10:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
* The reason the UN and African Union refuse to call it genocide is that people would be confronted with the fact that '''Arabs''' are committing genocide. It amazes me that Eurabia, which insists that the car-B-ques in Paris are the work of "youths" (not Arab youths), has even decided to call it genocide. Perhaps the blood of 6 million Jews weighs on their souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 10:59, 8 April 2007 (EDT)