• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    96 months ago

    When it’s targeted at a specific group of people and there’s such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      -4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

      So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a “genocide”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

        Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.

        And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.

        Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don’t feel I am conveying this well

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          06 months ago

          Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            It wouldn’t be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I’m not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won’t readily denounce it.

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              06 months ago

              Fair enough, but if an invasion of Canada is not necessarily genocide then there must be more to it than attacking a less powerful neighbor.