this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
357 points (89.8% liked)

World News

31907 readers
457 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Sorry, you're right. In the absence of specific genocidal intent, the US and UK are only guilty of crimes against humanity, the crime of aggression, and various sundry war crimes.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

Yes, correct. Now Saddam Hussein on the other hand..

Edit: oh you're one of the hexbear people, jesus you people are insufferable

[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah killing millions of people was totally worth getting one man!

Now let's bomb Washington DC to rubble and kill your family so we can get to Bush, the even bigger war criminal.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did I say I think we should have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Nah you just pearl clutched when we called Western Powers bad names.

I'm loosely in favor of restricting the use of the word genocide to when it's definitionally appropriate myself, but that's in the context of effective communication and clarity. So long as "genocide" is going to be used exclusively to refer to US State Department desginated enemies only, then it's perfectly reasonable to liken the US/France/UK's horrific foreign interventions genocide as well. Western interventions, both formal and clandestine, have killed many more than anyone else those imperialist fucks have accused of the word, so in the interest of showing just how absurd their usage is yes, we should and can call Western powers genocidal too.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)