3 ms·

>> China > Because they would be the ones to know?[1] > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu

>> China > Because they would be the ones to know?[1] > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin... Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide?

jameshilliard 2mo ago
> Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide? Based on the publicly available evidence I would consider it to potentially be genocide, certainly it's more plausible than the accusations against Israel since China isn't at war with the Uyghurs from my understanding. However keep in mind International law requires Dolus Specialis(special intent) for something to be considered Genocide which is a very high bar. Note that war crimes or crimes against humanity alone would be insufficient to reach that bar.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent
- forestrywat 1mo ago
  One, China is also committing genocide. Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.
  - jameshilliard 1mo ago
    > Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir. Saying Ben-Gvir has genocidal intent(which I'd probably largely agree with) is not remotely the same as saying Israel has genocidal intent. The power dynamics in Israel are much more complicated and one should not conflate things said by the most extreme ministers as actual policy.
    - manyaoman 1mo ago
      What would you count as sufficient evidence of genocidal intent, then?
      - jameshilliard 1mo ago
        In terms of an individual or a state itself?
        manyaoman 1mo ago
        The state of Israel.
        jameshilliard 1mo ago
        > The state of Israel. Just as an example hypothetical, if there were evidence that the Israeli government was implementing as a clear matter of top down government policy the deliberate extermination/targeting of Palestinian civilians with no plausible military/security justification then that would probably be considered genocidal intent by a state. I think such a policy would also then have to be successfully implemented for it to be considered an actual genocide. Merely being say careless when it comes to civilian casualties in a war would not reach the bar of genocide by itself(although that could still be a war crime). The evidence I've seen so far indicates Israel operates with reasonable care to avoid civilian casualties where feasible(similar if not better than United States when say the United States fought ISIS). Genocide in international law is an extremely high bar. Wars(even ones with many war crimes) generally do not reach that threshold.
        forestrywat 1mo ago
        Where do you fall on "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" ? Israel saying things, the thing happening, but no clear orders from the top.

jameshilliard 2mo ago

> Just so I understand correctly, are you implying here that you consider the persecution of Uyghurs a genocide? Based on the publicly available evidence I would consider it to potentially be genocide, certainly it's more plausible than the accusations against Israel since China isn't at war with the Uyghurs from my understanding. However keep in mind International law requires Dolus Specialis(special intent) for something to be considered Genocide which is a very high bar. Note that war crimes or crimes against humanity alone would be insufficient to reach that bar.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocidal_intent

forestrywat 1mo ago
One, China is also committing genocide. Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir.
- jameshilliard 1mo ago
  > Two, the intent is clearly genocide. Listen to Ben-Gvir. Saying Ben-Gvir has genocidal intent(which I'd probably largely agree with) is not remotely the same as saying Israel has genocidal intent. The power dynamics in Israel are much more complicated and one should not conflate things said by the most extreme ministers as actual policy.
  - manyaoman 1mo ago
    What would you count as sufficient evidence of genocidal intent, then?
    - jameshilliard 1mo ago
      In terms of an individual or a state itself?
      - manyaoman 1mo ago
        The state of Israel.
        jameshilliard 1mo ago
        > The state of Israel. Just as an example hypothetical, if there were evidence that the Israeli government was implementing as a clear matter of top down government policy the deliberate extermination/targeting of Palestinian civilians with no plausible military/security justification then that would probably be considered genocidal intent by a state. I think such a policy would also then have to be successfully implemented for it to be considered an actual genocide. Merely being say careless when it comes to civilian casualties in a war would not reach the bar of genocide by itself(although that could still be a war crime). The evidence I've seen so far indicates Israel operates with reasonable care to avoid civilian casualties where feasible(similar if not better than United States when say the United States fought ISIS). Genocide in international law is an extremely high bar. Wars(even ones with many war crimes) generally do not reach that threshold.
        forestrywat 1mo ago
        Where do you fall on "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" ? Israel saying things, the thing happening, but no clear orders from the top.