Genocide by definition means...?

Question

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

So wouldn't terrorists fall into this catagory? So is genocide acceptable now? Or was it just bad when it was aimed at jewish people?

My definition comes from "The American HeritageDictionary of the English Language, Fourth Ed."

Political parties are included. Hezbollah is a radical political party.

The question was not aimed directly at the current Hezbollah and Israeli conflict. More generically, should we be trying to eliminate radical groups? If so, is this not genocide? Perhaps genocide is acceptable or are we going about this in the wrong frame of mind.

Answer 1

Is that something you want to know, or are you just trying to make a point?

Actually, "Genocide" does not refer to the extermination of a political group. Think of the morpheme "Geno-" as having to do with genes, or genealogy. So, "Genocide" only applies when a specific genetic (ethnic/racial) group is targeted for extermination. Hence, the "-cide". You may recognize that from words like "Pesticide" (Extermination of pests), or "Bactericide" (Extermination of bacteria).

Answer 2

Actually, it's generally limited to national, racial or ethic groups. Political groups only count if they are culturally uniform. Attempting to eliminate a political organization, especially a criminal one, doesn't count as genocide.

You appear to be talking about the Israeli attacks against Hezbollah. First, just for those who haven't been paying attention, Israel is not trying to eliminate all Lebanese, or all Muslims. In fact, they're reimbursing the Lebanese civilians for the cost of evacuating from the warzone. Hardly an attempt to kill them.

As for attempting to eliminate Hezbollah, that's not because Hezbollah has any particular ethnic or cultural identity. Israel is attempting to stop Hezbollah, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. That's genocide, and it's Hezbollah's avowed mission. Israel is attempting to stop this terrorist organization from succeeding. Just like the US is attempting to stop Al-Qaeda.

And the most recent conflict is the result of failure via every other attempt over the past several decades to get Hezbollah to stop attacking Israel. Hezbollah started an attempted genocide against Israel, by their own admission. And after decades of nobody being willing to do anything else about it, Israel finally struck back at the terrorist organization that has been attacking them.

And in that case, yes, the attempted destruction of Hezbollah is acceptable. Hezbollah created the situation, and it's too late now to complain just because they're losing the war they started.

Answer 3

It's bad when applied to ANYONE, and (since you mentioned the Jewish people) it's presently being aimed at the Jewish people once again by a certain dictator and hundreds of millions of crazed terrorists and their supporters against the 7 million in tiny Israel.

Also, in my opinion, genocide is taking place against the unborn right here in America, where people believe they should be allowed to "choose" who lives and who dies.

Answer 4

well of course genocide is wrong it doesnt matter who its aimed at its still murder just worse... i mean i dont think its acceptable i think its wrong but with the law as it is murder is "acceptable" at least if its in self defence or if its punishment for a murderer but as for the terrorists i dont think they fall into that category because they dont single anyone out like 9/11 im sure there was all kinds of people of race religion politics an such in those buildings

Answer 5

If I understand the gist of your question, you are saying you think that what Israel is currently doing to Hezbollah "Genocide".

I think they have been very clear that when Hezbollah disarms, they will quit their assault. So I really don't understand how you are making that quantum leap jump in logic, there.

Answer 6

Its still bad now but terrorists, just as hitler, think they are doing the best for themselves. I.E. Americans weren't participating in genocide in the irradication of native americans, nor were the spanish in there aztec conquest...or so they thought.

Answer 7

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, 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."




and yeah.......................what did u tell me? to do my homwork myself? well, i wanted to write a better answer with some new points !!!! nevermind , thanks for ur answer!!!!!!!

Answer 8

Israel falls into this category also. Israel is just as much a terrorist as those it seeks to destroy. Israel has perverted the word "terrorism" to mean "self defense" when applied to Israel but no others. Apparently Israel thinks it is the only country in the region that has any right of self defense.

Answer 9

terrorists are the crazy, messed-up, ignorant maniacs who commit genocide in the first place. how ever is there another way of dealing with them besides fighting back?? i don't think they would be reasonable, do you? i just don't know.

Answer 10

I would say that it is only racially/ethnically based. So no, terrorists would not count, as not all Arabs are terrorists.