Fucking idiot should go to jail.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You can't get genocide without disarming the victims first, can you now?

This has always pissed me off. Yes, UG, yes you damn well can. Look at Rwanda, look at Sudan, look at so many hundreds of years of ethnic conflict and cleansing in central asia, africa, even eastern europe. Just cause the victims tried and failed to defend themselves doesn't mean they were all disarmed first. In fact, history more or less shows that genocide is almost NEVER the orderly, policed affair the Germans made of it - genocide is open, bloody, unregulated, and while the FORCE of arms is always imbalanced, the losing side isn't always - or even usually - a DISarmed one.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Ibram

This has always pissed me off. Yes, UG, yes you damn well can. Look at Rwanda, look at Sudan, look at so many hundreds of years of ethnic conflict and cleansing in central asia, africa, even eastern europe. Just cause the victims tried and failed to defend themselves doesn't mean they were all disarmed first. In fact, history more or less shows that genocide is almost NEVER the orderly, policed affair the Germans made of it - genocide is open, bloody, unregulated, and while the FORCE of arms is always imbalanced, the losing side isn't always - or even usually - a DISarmed one.

Agree with you about Rwanda, etc. Germany had no special reason to disarm the Jews. Most of Europe is not as pro gun as we are, and citizens do not commonly own guns. This included the Jews in Germany in the 30's.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Agree with you about Rwanda, etc. Germany had no special reason to disarm the Jews. Most of Europe is not as pro gun as we are, and citizens do not commonly own guns. This included the Jews in Germany in the 30's.

They weren't pro gun, so there was no need to disarm them - how'd that work out?

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Ibram

In fact, history more or less shows that genocide is almost NEVER the orderly, policed affair the Germans made of it - genocide is open, bloody, unregulated, and while the FORCE of arms is always imbalanced, the losing side isn't always - or even usually - a DISarmed one.

Like Ibram says, that orderliness was just the German thumbprint. Can you imagine if the Swiss had been in charge? It would have been over before any one knew it.

[Griff]

When Johnny Turk did the Armenians it wasn't nearly as efficient but was at least as effective. Now Turkey can hide behind UG definitions of genocide and pretend it never happened... The American genocide against the native Americans was against a small well armed effective fighting force but that was nothing against shear numbers of immigrants and economic reality.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Like Ibram says, that orderliness was just the German thumbprint. Can you imagine if the Swiss had been in charge? It would have been over before any one knew it.

I don't believe it would have happened in Switzerland despite the fact that the Swiss were as prejudiced as the Germans back in the 30's. The difference is that every male Swiss citizen between the ages of 18 and 60 is on stand-by against foreign attack. They have their army rifles (or whatever military weapon) stored in their homes at all times. Plus, they go through a period of military training every couple of years or so to keep their skills sharp. If the Swiss had attacked their Jewish population, the result would have been a civil war. Just not worth the grief.