Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

We have had genocide in Britain: during the 17th Century the British engaged in ethnic cleansing in Ireland (not strictly genocide, but certainly a crime against humanity). Prior to that there was what amounted to a genocide in the late 11th century (the Harrying of the North).

The components necessary for genocide do not exist in modern Britain. To be armed as a defence against a highly theoretical and I would argue vanishingly small risk of a total cultural and political volte face does not make sense when the risks that armament would bring are very real and measurable.

A couple points as you guys go back and forth.
At times the Plains Indians were better armed than the the American soldiers. It was really a game of numbers not armaments. Emigration doomed the native culture. I'd agree that it was genocide as it was intentional policy. As a descendant of the poorly armed Irish, I'd also call that genocide. That was a case where arms could have made a difference since they had numbers. As far as political about face goes, it would be well to remember that educated populations have lost their collective mind before. The scapegoating of your Muslim population could lead to similar outcomes. It is an interesting question whether that oppression would come from a government or the armed rabble...