US: Islamic State 'has committed genocide'
- Thread starter Kurdel
- Start date
- Status
ThatStupidLion
Member
thought this was obvious?
The term "genocide" by popular definition is much different than the term as defined by international law.
Is this the US Department of Redundancy?
ISIS is killing everything that isn't their specific brand of Islam, how are the known actions of the IS not genocide?
Not sure what this is supposed to change, OP.
US congress won't even let Obama pick a new supreme justice, let alone start a war during his term, so nothing will change on that front even with this big proclamation.
The drone attacks seem to be doing an adequate job at picking off their top guys, anyways.
US congress won't even let Obama pick a new supreme justice, let alone start a war during his term, so nothing will change on that front even with this big proclamation.
The drone attacks seem to be doing an adequate job at picking off their top guys, anyways.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Because the legal definition of Genocide is extremely narrow and difficult to prove because legally speaking if genocide can be proven, IIRC, all UN members are obligated to get in there to stop it, basically.
Which nobody wants to do because geopolitics, so yeah.
While it as obvious what has been going on it was never officially declared. In some cases the administration has taken a lot of flack for specifically avoiding saying Genocide was being done.
It doesn't change anything but it does at least finally call a spade a spade instead of dancing around it
It doesn't change anything but it does at least finally call a spade a spade instead of dancing around it
I don't know what it means either. Considering the past gaffes with the Obama admin with "red lines", I wonder if this was even an intentional positioning on Kerry's part.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Obama doesn't WANT to start a war in the Middle East during his term. His entire foreign policy goal has been to extricate the US from the Middle East and redirect its focus toward Latin America and Asia.
ThatStupidLion
Member
Yea, based on 2007 precedent, if Genocide can be proven to have taken place then the responsibility for preventing falls on other states, specifically:
"The decision asserted that States are obliged to take all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible. This obligation exists regardless of whether the states efforts to influence the perpetrators changes the outcome."
DontBeThatGuy
Member
They're killing Muslims too. Thousands of them.
The implications are that the states in the UN have a legal obligation to try and prevent genocide.
Because an official genocide label is loaded with legal (and moral) implications for action.
For instance, everyone agrees that the genocide in Rwanda was a genocide, but Clinton never officially declared it one to excuse the U.S. from acting on it.
This is true, but as has been pointed out, there's now technically an obligation to do so.
Aren't there christians and jews living as dhimmi in ISIS-controlled cities? I think I remember that from the Vice doc.
I'd argue that dancing around it was necessary. Politics forced this behavior of the withholding particular proclamation. It has not yet been the time to get involved, because if we did it would not be a joint operation. The world loves to hate the US for the problems in the ME. But as always it's on the US to clean everything up. To intervene against atrocities and crimes against humanity. The US literally can't afford to fund these operations if it doesn't somehow recoup the immense costs, but as always the US is made out to be an oil monger, when in reality Oil should be globalized anyways instead of nationalized.
So it's a very precarious geopolitical decision to get involved. Timing is everything, and unfortunately it involves waiting until you get sufficient backing from the international community.
Actually they do allow him to start a war. Obama tried getting them to take back the powers they granted Bush and Congress said nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/
I guess when it comes to killing Muslims it's a.o.k.
MarkMclovin
Member
We've not seen any videos for a while whereas before it was almost every week.
The Russians have saved us!
The Russians have saved us!
RustyNails
Member
We declared Darfur a genocide in 2004, but nothing came out of it. This is a good step but dont look too much into it.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Lol, the Russians did pound them well but so did others. Losing thousands of fighters in a few months from both US and Russian bombing must be taking its toll.
Skellig Gra
Member
Little late to the game Kerry.
Actually non-ISIS Muslims are their #1 target; not non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are to either be enslaved, or have the option to bow to their supremecy and pay them for their freedom.
While they are certainly killing farily indiscriminiately, their doctrine leaves room for non-Muslims to survive. Muslims who do not join ISIS however are to be killed IIRC.
Maintenance
Member
Setting up the field for Hillary to come in and sweep with troops.
Lord_Byron28
Member
Kerry, Clinton, the republican establishment and the Democratic establishment want us to jump right into another war after 40+ years of stupid wars with little benefit to us. Obama is the one resisting going into war, which I agree with him on.
Netherscourge
Banned
Soooooo.....
NOW WHAT?
NOW WHAT?
- Status