nexter wrote:
What's 'officially classified as' something isn't necessarily what it is in reality. In all and any cases. This merely tells the narrative as it suits those in power at the time of 'classification' and/or beyond.
Much time has passed since the genocide at Carthage, Africa so the classification isn't by those in power at the time. Historians from varying backgrounds have studied it and registered it as such.
nexter wrote:
The number of 40,000,000 First Nation Americans massacred by - illegal, one might add - white occupiers of what is now the US and Canada is a consensus figure agreed by most anthropologists and historians and is in part based on the number of tribes that lived in that area prior to the arrival of Europeans, and the typical, average population size of tribal groups. It is actually a very conservative estimate. American history as written by white US Americans may well tell you something else entirely, but like almost all American history written by white US Americans it is a complete and utter fiction. The great marches whereby whole groups of tribes were forcibly evicted from their lands by white US Americans in the latter part of the 19th c. C.E. and forced onto 'reservations' alone killed whole tribes and hundreds of thousands. And as far as Mexicans and Spaniards are concerned, their part in any of it was a very minor one overall. Hell, in the last quarter of the 19th c. especially, white US Americans/occupiers used to go out in hunting parties and shot 1st Nation Americans by the hundreds and thousands because there were not enough buffalo left to kill! Of course, in what is now Canada it was largely French and British troops who were initially responsible, followed on by the 'settlers'/occupiers, but the numbers of 1st Nation Americans killed there was comparatively much smaller than in the US. Overall, it still ranks as the largest Holocaust in known history.
It's apparent that you're not refining your allegation to American settlers only. Canadians, Mexicans and Spaniards were responsible for a lot of the deaths of Native Americans. A genocide is restricted to a relatively short period of time. Typically within 10 years, not a span of decades as you've done.
nexter wrote:
As for the so-called Nazi holocaust - and bear in mind please that I personally had family members affected there - that still awaits proper historical discourse and examination of the true facts. Heck, you only have to look at the immigration figures of eastern European Jews into the US alone during the 1930s to realise that the figure of 6 million cannot be accurate when the whole Jewish population of central and eastern Europe was estimated at about 6 million at the time. There is something decidedly wrong with that whole rotten narrative. It also completely ignores the fact that at the time of the Nazi Holocaust - i.e., app. 1940-45, Europe, in particular Germany and much of central and eastern Europe, was being ravaged by a vicious typhus epidemic that killed millions. Alas, we'll have to await more enlightened times for the whole saga to be examined properly.
Huh? The low estimate is 5,750,000 Jews killed. Hitler had Jews exterminated everywhere the Nazis occupied.
nexter wrote:
I never said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were genocide. What I did say was - and is - that it was
an experiment in how efficiently civilians could be killed in a future genocide and that was
the most heinous war crime and crime against humanity yet. And by that opinion I stand, as I do by all my opinions. It most certainly was not
Quote:
a normal part of how war was conducted
- it was an event without any precedent in the first place! And whether it saved any lives is very dubious indeed when it killed around 300,000 instantly and thousands more in the aftermath for decades to come, and when Japan would have surrendered within days anyway! Perhaps it saved the lives of a few US troops, in which case one has to ask - as so often - are US American lives then more valuable than anyone else's lives? (I'm fairly sure you're not one of those gung-ho WASP yanks who'd subscribe to that Windy, so that latter bit is a purely rhetorical question and not meant personally.) No, the use of the bombs was purely a matter of wanting to find out what effect they had in a real use situation and how radiation affected people, pure and simple. Not even countries as mad as Israel, India and Pakistan (as the most likely 'hotspots' to do so) have so far resorted to the use of nuclear weapons. The US stands alone in that hideous, heinous crime.
You have to look at the context of what was going on in WWII. America was pissed about Pearl Harbor and the Japanese were in some ways more ruthless than the Nazis. They didn't believe in surrender, had no respect for POW's unlike Germany (who for the most part did for American, British & other allied soldiers with the exception of Russians) and like Germany murdered many people due to their ethnicity. There was the Bataan Death March, and a host of other atrocities committed against American soldiers by the Japanese.
Towards the end of the war, it was obvious that Japan had no chance of winning the war but continued to fight simply to kill as many Americans as possible. They started doing targeted kamikaze attacks instead of spontaneous ones, fought to the death on many islands in the Pacific and when cornered, they committed suicide instead of surrendering. As I said earlier, they did not believe in surrendering. It was relatively rare to capture a Japanese soldier.
Americans were trying to end the war of a country hellbent on not surrendering under any circumstance. They firebombed Tokyo killing between 80,000 and 130,000 civilians which is more than the amount killed in Hiroshima (80,00) and Nagasaki (40,00) notwithstanding the effects of radiation later.
The mere fact that after all the losses on the various islands, their Navy and Air Force basically wiped out, the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the Japanese still refused to surrender!
It wasn't until they bombed Nagasaki and the Russians reneged on their Neutrality Pact with Japan and invaded Manchuria that they decided to surrender. Besides finally realizing that resistance is futile, they were also terrified of Russia. They knew that they would have ended up like Germany after the war ended.
So, I'm not so sure that finding out about the effects of radiation was the reason the nuclear bombs were dropped.
nexter wrote:
And a government system that is capable of that is capable of anything. And who really knows how much malware, produced by such a government and its agencies, there really is in everybody's systems already? Personally, I trust no government, but least of all 'Uncle Sam'.
The U.S. government is the worst?!!
What about North Korea, Russia and the number 1 worst, China? North Korea and China are total scum that are committing human rights violations everyday and all three lead the world in hacking and malware.