Genuine question. The definition of genocide by the UN basically sums down to:>destroying a group completely or in part>in partDoesn't that mean destroying a radical element, which makes up a subset of your enemy's population, a genocide?
It's wrong only in the "whole ethnic group" aspect, because virtually every ethnic group has decent or totally innocent people there's no good reason to destroy.Destroying significant parts of certain cultural or ethnic groups can be entirely justified however.On the whole human rights and a rejection of violence is total bullshit, and the creators of such "laws" as well as those supposed to adhere to or respect them are fully aware of this - as demonstrated in the fact that they ignore them whenever it's convenient; it's out of touch with reality.
>>534660361Genocide is 100% supported by normies, as long as its slow and legal.
>>534660361Whether or not something is genocide ultimately depends on Mens Rea, i.e the intent of the action. So there's a difference between "I just killed 10.000 because whoopsie poop ololo who knows where missiles go after you launch them?" and "I deliberately killed these 10.000 specifically because they believe a different storybook character than I do is real."Whether or not it is always wrong depends on your flavour of ethics. Ethics cannot be objective, because it depends on value statements, and value statements are by definition statements about preference - something an objective statement cannot include. In my ethics, it is always wrong. In some other person's ethics, it is not always wrong. A definitive answer cannot be had.
>>534660361Generally killing the women and children of an opposing group is wrong, no matter how radical their element.Children can be educated, and women can be swayed out of a radical ideology or at the least rendered harmless far easier than men... even though men can be too in all honesty, but it is generally harder, riskier, and worth less in return because they would be far likely to exist as competent fathers or cooperative tribe members. It is varying levels of friction in a heirarchy that comes down to survival mathmatics. However... if we're talking about hostile disease carriers, then measure must be grimly considered.
>>534663495Such an attitude is exploitable and in fact counter productive when facing an enemy radical or desperate enough, especially with how easy children are to indoctrinate; what will they do? Make women and children fight you, be it suicide bombers, saboteurs or to plant mines or IEDs and the like; things that don't involve physical combat.In effect you're counting on the enemy "not going that far" or "resorting to such means", which however can be entirely justified in an asymmetrical conflict.The reason it's rarely done is the common perception of the masses that it's immoral, making you few friends, even though that in itself is a delusional attitude and means the masses are wrong by objective metrics, because ethically men's lives aren't worth any less than women's or children's; instead the reality is that women usually have better uses (popping out children) and that children suck at thinking for themselves/are vulnerable and liable to exploitation, which however is semi-delusional as well: there's no shortage of virtually brain-dead moid cattle that it's only marginally more difficult to convince into doing stupid shit than children are.Still "optics" can be an overriding concern, dumb and often useless as they are; they are simply another mode of war.>look our enemy is le evil xdd>because they use women and children as combatants after we brutally and one-sidedly murdered all their men in their sleep xdd>which btw means murdering them was justified because they would do such a thing xddCattle will eat that right up, which in turn makes questionable whether they are worthy of any concern.
>>534660361Genocide is wrong when im the target, and right when im the benificiary
>>534664211You kinda have personal responsibility.n If you arent a bot that likes to cout itself in this shit.
>>534660361genocide is an amoral topic, ant genocides/wars happen everyday.
>>534663495If you have killed the men, genocide is already complete. Killing the women and children does not constitute additional genocide, since once the men are gone you have already reached 100% already.
>>534660361>brainwashed retard thinks if they call children 'radical' it justifies mass murderThe whole of israel is radical and should be eliminated, you're right
>>534664361I might have that, but do cattle?Clearly not a whole lot.There's also other forms of responsibility, besides the personal one.
>>534664475Boys grow into men.
>>534667740Ok, I am actually retarded. I forgot that some children are male.
>>534660361The only justified violence is proportional self defense. Anything beyond that can be considered initiation of aggression which in itself then justifies retaliation of the other party directly or indirectly. >>destroying a group completely or in part>Doesn't that mean destroying a radical element, which makes up a subset of your enemy's population, a genocide?Radical is too fuzzy of a term that can easily be misused. The only thing that matters is what I described above which is if there was initiation of aggression and to what degree.
