15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkYou can't possibly be talking about the Armenian catastrophe; please give some examples of ethnic cleansing that prevented war and didn't involve killing. Or clarify exactly what you mean. The Ottoman collapse started before WW1; the Arab revolt during WW1 played an important part; the Young Turks finished off the job ... I'm simply ignorant of the important, positive role played by ethnic cleansing in this period.
The ending of the Ottoman empire involved a lot of ethnic cleansing, some of which invloved killing, but by no means all.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEthnic cleansing put an end to the conflict. Once the varius populations got settled, the lines were drawn and the killing stopped.
You can't possibly be talking about the Armenian catastrophe; please give some examples of ethnic cleansing that prevented war and didn't involve killing. Or clarify exactly what you mean. The Ottoman collapse started before WW1; the Arab revolt during WW1 played an important part; the Young Turks finished off the job ... I'm simply ignorant of the important, positive role played by ethnic cleansing in this period.
For more recent, how about Palestinians living in Jordan? They're not getting killed by Isreali bombs. Or how about Israelis moving to Europe or the U.S.? They're not getting boomed, are they?
Would there have been a problem in Kosovo if they had voluntarily separated?
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkYou seem to be saying that because people stopped being killed once the ethnic cleansing stopped, ethnic cleansing was somehow a positive force. As if to say because Armenians in the USA are better off, the murder of their people was somehow justified. Let alone what happened to the Jews. Then there are the Chechens ... also victims of ethnic cleansing -- and pretty angry about it today.
Ethnic cleansing put an end to the conflict. Once the varius populations got settled, the lines were drawn and the killing stopped.
For more recent, how about Palestinians living in Jordan? They're not getting killed by Isreali bombs. Or how about Israelis moving to Europe or the U.S.? They're not getting boomed, are they?
Would there have been a problem in Kosovo if they had voluntarily separated?
But you haven't given me any concrete examples of what you're talking about, which leads me to suspect that you don't know what you're talking about. (I'm happy to be proved wrong on that). I mean, ethnic cleansing is violent by definition. 'Voluntary separation' would be fine, I guess, if everybody agreed to it -- but it would not be ethnic cleansing.
I guess the question could be restated: under what circumstances would you consider the forcible removal of people from their lands to be justified? Please supply examples from history.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWould the Jews not have been better off being moved out of Europe than be killed? Would the Chechens not live in a more peaceful country if the Russians moved their own arses back out? Would South African have seen the violence involved in removing whitey form power if the rest of the world had stepped in and moved whitey out?
You seem to be saying that because people stopped being killed once the ethnic cleansing stopped, ethnic cleansing was somehow a positive force. As if to say because Armenians in the USA are better off, the murder of their people was somehow justified. Let alone what happened to the Jews. Then there are the Chechens ... also victims of ethnic cleansing ...[text shortened]... removal of people from their lands to be justified? Please supply examples from history.
And no, I'm not sayin that ethnic cleansing by killing is a positive force, I'm saying population migration is.
Gotta run. Be back with more on this later.
15 Dec 08
Heres Baghdad. The killing subsided when the populations separated. A lot of people died until people moved. Some voluntary and some forced. Shia militias would kick out Sunni families from the Shia areas and Sunni militias would kick Shia out of Sunni area.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18715.htm
This article shows maps of demographics chage.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/06/sunni-shia-baghdad/
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkYes ... But in Israel, Arabs and Israelis are -- in the overwhelming majority of cases -- not killing each other. And the Palestinians who are doing the killing carry the burden of having been -- ethnically cleansed. So I'm not sure how the recent history of Iraq applies to the Israeli situation.
Heres Baghdad. The killing subsided when the populations separated. A lot of people died until people moved. Some voluntary and some forced. Shia militias would kick out Sunni families from the Shia areas and Sunni militias would kick Shia out of Sunni area.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf one of the parties was moved out of the area, the killing would stop. For the most part. How big 'the area' is in that sentence is questionable, but the outcome isn't. Remove one of the conflicting parties and the conflict stops.
Yes ... But in Israel, Arabs and Israelis are -- in the overwhelming majority of cases -- not killing each other. And the Palestinians who are doing the killing carry the burden of having been -- ethnically cleansed. So I'm not sure how the recent history of Iraq applies to the Israeli situation.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkThe ethnic cleansing you are extolling is always done by threat of force on those who are unwilling to be dispossessed of their homes. Killing invariably is required as there will always be persons who will resist such inhumane violations of their basic, natural rights. Your support of such crimes is monstrous.
If one of the parties was moved out of the area, the killing would stop. For the most part. How big 'the area' is in that sentence is questionable, but the outcome isn't. Remove one of the conflicting parties and the conflict stops.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderOr perhaps the individual blindly advocating to stay a course which continues to create killing on a mass scale in the name of 'fairness' is the true monster.
The ethnic cleansing you are extolling is always done by threat of force on those who are unwilling to be dispossessed of their homes. Killing invariably is required as there will always be persons who will resist such inhumane violations of their basic, natural rights. Your support of such crimes is monstrous.
If a superior force is going to decimate a population in order to claim its land, it would be the far more responsible to move that population than to kill it.
Or one could insist on 'basic rights' and let the slaughter begin.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkIf a criminal is going to enter your home and dispossess you of it, which would be more monstrous: A) for the collective of humanity to help you be thrown out and kill you if you resist or B) to stop the criminal from violating your basic rights?
Or perhaps the individual blindly advocating to stay a course which continues to create killing on a mass scale in the name of 'fairness' is the true monster.
If a superior force is going to decimate a population in order to claim its land, it would be the far more responsible to move that population than to kill it.
Or one could insist on 'basic rights' and let the slaughter begin.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThe question of how the world should react to such a case is a different one than what would be the more responsible of two choices for the cleanser.
If a criminal is going to enter your home and dispossess you of it, which would be more monstrous: A) for the collective of humanity to help you be thrown out and kill you if you resist or B) to stop the criminal from violating your basic rights?
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by Merkvery well. remove the jewish israelis. same thing.
If one of the parties was moved out of the area, the killing would stop. For the most part. How big 'the area' is in that sentence is questionable, but the outcome isn't. Remove one of the conflicting parties and the conflict stops.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkThe most responsible course for the criminal is not to engage in crime. Reducing the amount of murders you commit in order to steal something from someone else isn't a particularly laudatory course of action as compared to not stealing.
The question of how the world should react to such a case is a different one than what would be the more responsible of two choices for the cleanser.