I think thatโs too reductive; genocide is somewhat vaguely defined, but Iโve always seen it as systematically trying to eradicate some large group of civilians; AFAIK the Russian military isnโt deliberately killing those who arenโt fighting back (not even if theyโre Nazis). On the other hand, maybe โgenocideโ is just a flawed term since itโs based on presumed intent rather than results
Jokes aside itโs a good conversation. It is a vague term and continues to be the worldโs most popular word for the greatest crime imaginable. What I find interesting is that mass killing of people of a particular political ideology still falls out of the bounds of the ever growing definition of genocide.100,000 communists in South Korea are systematically killed and it doesnโt capture the imagination quite the same if it canโt be called genocide.
Iโm not arguing that genocide should be a more vague term. I feel like a need a word for mass killing of largely unarmed demographics that is more flexible.
Agreed, apologies if I seemed hostile. Regardless of how strict the definition is, Amerika is by far the worst (especially if you include sanctions placed on countries like Cuba, the DPRK and Syria, which I think is entirely reasonable considering the effects and stated intentions)
