Research shows that worshipped World War 2 hero orchestrated Genocide

[RabidMongoose]

I think that it will change as demographics change and other countries and regions become more predominant in the world.

The focus of WW2 is going to shift from primarily being about Europe to include more about Asia.

I agree. The UK is basically a third rate power in the world and their former colonial slaves are rising up in global power. The UK establishment will no longer be able to cloud their bloody past.

 

[CanOWorms]

Churchill is viewed as a hero for his leadership during WWII but I guess it's too difficult for your peanut brain to understand that maybe he could have been a great leader and a sorry sob at the same time

But his leadership in WW2 led to one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. Shouldn't that be factored into his leadership being categorized as a failure of humanity? He was a mirror of Hitler.

 

[Infohawk]

As I've said many times, that incident didn't cause me to hate anyone. It caused me to look into issues on why it happened. That is when I started researching European issues. Researching these issues caused me to hate their governments and histories, very similarly to how many of them hate the American government but don't hate all Americans.



Did that happen to you? Is that why you think it's ok to slaughter millions of people? I wonder if that's why you're excusing Churchill's genocide.

So what was the incident? Was it so scarring that you can't talk about it? Obviously it was since it pushed you to start finding reasons to hate them.

I haven't had any bad experiences with Indians. The ones I've met are level-headed and educated. You're probably the looniest and most unreasonable I've ever heard of.

 

[CanOWorms]

No, he thinks it's OK to slaughter millions of people if the country already has a high birthrate.

Along the same lines, it's OK to murder one child in a family if the family is expecting twins. The family is growing anyways!

He does go to extreme lengths to justify Churchill's genocide.

 

[RabidMongoose]

He does go to extreme lengths to justify Churchill's genocide.

He's shown himself to be an extremist incapable of reasoning. His excuses are disgusting.

 

[freegeeks]

But his leadership in WW2 led to one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. Shouldn't that be factored into his leadership being categorized as a failure of humanity? He was a mirror of Hitler.

Godwin's law

you just lost the discussion


my movie is starting, see you in one of your other rage threads!!!!

 

[CanOWorms]

So what was the incident? Was it so scarring that you can't talk about it? Obviously it was since it pushed you to start finding reasons to hate them.

It's not scarring, but I'm not going to talk about it. Apparently you would think I deserve it because I am subhuman.

I haven't had any bad experiences with Indians. The ones I've met are level-headed and educated. You're probably the looniest and most unreasonable I've ever heard of.

Do you tell them that you think it's ok to kill them if their population is increasing in the world or that it's ok to kill them for economic gain? Or is that just something you do on the Internet?

 

[Infohawk]

No, he thinks it's OK to slaughter millions of people if the country already has a high birthrate.

Along the same lines, it's OK to murder one child in a family if the family is expecting twins. The family is growing anyways!

I forgot the original reason I stopped responding to you is that refused to concede what the definition of genocide is. Genocide must be intentional and it must be about killing an entire race. Otherwise it doesn't really satisfy the definition. Is there anything you do understand about genocide? Nevermind, don't answer. Shockingly you're even less honest and more unreasonable than COW is. No more feeding the troll.

 

[Infohawk]

It's not scarring, but I'm not going to talk about it. Apparently you would think I deserve it because I am subhuman.



Do you tell them that you think it's ok to kill them if their population is increasing in the world or that it's ok to kill them for economic gain? Or is that just something you do on the Internet?

You think you're subhuman? That's terrible. You need to see a therapist stat. Why aren't you going to talk about it if it isn't a big deal? It seems like in fact it was a life-changing event for you.

As to your second response, please try to distinguish between regular murder and genocide. YOU are the one talking about genocide. And in that case you have should show that there was an attempt to kill off an entire race. That didn't happen here.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I forgot the original reason I stopped responding to you is that refused to concede what the definition of genocide is. Genocide must be intentional and it must be about killing an entire race. Otherwise it doesn't really satisfy the definition. Is there anything you do understand about genocide? Nevermind, don't answer. Shockingly you're even less honest and more unreasonable than COW is. No more feeding the troll.

I did not realize that you were in charge of deciding what the word genocide means. Lots of people and countries have been discussing this very issue for quite some time.

When did you get this authority? How did you get it? Who are you exactly?

Also, your post is irrelevant to my pointing out your stupid logic that does nothing but show you are sick in the head.

 

[CanOWorms]

I forgot the original reason I stopped responding to you is that refused to concede what the definition of genocide is. Genocide must be intentional and it must be about killing an entire race. Otherwise it doesn't really satisfy the definition. Is there anything you do understand about genocide? Nevermind, don't answer. Shockingly you're even less honest and more unreasonable than COW is. No more feeding the troll.

Is deliberately thwarting any attempt to stop the deaths because of racial prejudices not intent? Especially when the party deliberately created the situation that led to the famine?

 

[CanOWorms]

You think you're subhuman? That's terrible. You need to see a therapist stat. Why aren't you going to talk about it if it isn't a big deal? It seems like in fact it was a life-changing event for you.

As to your second response, please try to distinguish between regular murder and genocide. YOU are the one talking about genocide. And in that case you have should show that there was an attempt to kill off an entire race. That didn't happen here.

There was an attempt and it killed up to 4 million people.

Are you denying that 4 million people died?
Are you denying that the famine started because of British policies?
Are you denying that Churchill thwarted attempts to stop the deaths?

 

[Infohawk]

There was an attempt and it killed up to 4 million people.

Are you denying that 4 million people died?
Are you denying that the famine started because of British policies?
Are you denying that Churchill thwarted attempts to stop the deaths?

Again with your vague reasoning. None of your questions have anything to do with genocide. At most you have shown that Churchill's inaction killed 4 million people. Out of a population of how many?

 

[CanOWorms]

Again with your vague reasoning. None of your questions have anything to do with genocide. At most you have shown that Churchill's inaction killed 4 million people. Out of a population of how many?

They all have to do with the genocide. Why does it matter what the population is?

So you're claiming that actively thwarting relief because of ego, racism, and economic reasons is an inaction? Are you also claiming that the British did not create the situation that led to the genocide because of their ill-made policies? I want to understand how you can consider it an inaction.

 

[Infohawk]

They all have to do with the genocide. Why does it matter what the population is?

So you're claiming that actively thwarting relief because of ego, racism, and economic reasons is an inaction?

When are you going to share your racism story? It's obviously central to what you have become.

In order to prove that Churchill intended genocide, you have to show he intended to kill the whole race. Hitler had a final solution for the Jews. There's proof of it. He killed a huge proportion of them. You have nothing on Churchill.

 

[CanOWorms]

When are you going to share your racism story? It's obviously central to what you have become.

I wonder what is central to the holocaust denier you have become.

In order to prove that Churchill intended genocide, you have to show he intended to kill the whole race. Hitler had a final solution for the Jews. There's proof of it. He killed a huge proportion of them. You have nothing on Churchill.

Genocide can target a race, an ethnicity, a community, a religious group, etc. As RabidMongoose stated, you are not the authority on the definition of genocide. Perhaps you are unused to someone refusing to accept your arbitrary definition you created tailored for your specific argument.

The readings state that Churchill deliberately let the Bengalis die because of ego, racism, and economic motives.

Just because Hitler went one way does not mean all genocides must go that way. There were many genocides throughout Europe that did not involve Final Solutions.

Again: So you're claiming that actively thwarting relief because of ego, racism, and economic reasons is an inaction? Are you also claiming that the British did not create the situation that led to the genocide because of their ill-made policies? I want to understand how you can consider it an inaction.

 

[Infohawk]

I wonder what is central to the holocaust denier you have become.



Genocide can target a race, an ethnicity, a community, a religious group, etc. The readings state that Churchill deliberately let the Bengalis die because of ego, racism, and economic motives.

Just because Hitler went one way does not mean all genocides must go that way. There were many genocides throughout Europe that did not involve Final Solutions.

Again: So you're claiming that actively thwarting relief because of ego, racism, and economic reasons is an inaction? Are you also claiming that the British did not create the situation that led to the genocide because of their ill-made policies? I want to understand how you can consider it an inaction.

I don't deny the Holocaust so your premise fails. You obviously don't want to discuss this issue anymore since you're being so secretive about the incident which is crucial to understanding your psychosis. But you've accomplished a lot in this thread: you've managed to convince Rabidmongoose Europeans are evil and everyone else that you're trivializing a sad moment in history.

 

[CanOWorms]

I don't deny the Holocaust so your premise fails.

You've been denying Churchill's genocide the entire thread. I'm refering to a holocaust, not the Holocaust.

You obviously don't want to discuss this issue anymore since you're being so secretive about the incident which is crucial to understanding your psychosis.

I fail to see how it is relevant to Churchill's genocide of 4 million lives.

But you've accomplished a lot in this thread: you've managed to convince Rabidmongoose Europeans are evil and everyone else that you're trivializing a sad moment in history.

I'm pretty sure you're the one trivializing a horrific moment in history. You are claiming that it doesn't matter how many people were killed since there was a large population that was supposedly growing in size.

You are trivializing one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century as it were nothing. You are defending the man who orchestrated the deaths of millions because of ego, greed, and racism.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Apparently InfoHawk, the preeminent authority on defining the term genocide, has come up with the most genocide-apologist definition that he could come up with...that genocide needs to be committed against the entire population for it to qualify as a genocide. Thus, if 98% of a population was targeted, it's not a genocide. Also, babies being born precludes actions from being genocidal.

This guy obviously has some sort of motive to come up with this bizarre definition and try to act as if it is the most accepted use of the word.

 

[CanOWorms]

Apparently InfoHawk, the preeminent authority on defining the term genocide, has come up with the most genocide-apologist definition that he could come up with...that genocide needs to be committed against the entire population for it to qualify as a genocide. Thus, if 98% of a population was targeted, it's not a genocide. Also, babies being born precludes actions from being genocidal.

This guy obviously has some sort of motive to come up with this bizarre definition and try to act as if it is the most accepted use of the word.

He's also come up with a new definition of inaction. It seems like he will come up with anything to justify this atrocity.

 

[cirrrocco]

I forgot the original reason I stopped responding to you is that refused to concede what the definition of genocide is. Genocide must be intentional and it must be about killing an entire race. Otherwise it doesn't really satisfy the definition. Is there anything you do understand about genocide? Nevermind, don't answer. Shockingly you're even less honest and more unreasonable than COW is. No more feeding the troll.

Infohawk question time for you

would you call pakistan's killing of East pakistanis genocide
Would you call Stalin killing off his own people genocide
What about Khmer , he was killing his own people too : is that genocide?

think about it for a few minutes and answer.

 

[feralkid]

Infohawk question time for you


What about Khmer , he was killing his own people too

Just an FYI:

Khmer is not a "He".

Khmer is the name of a group of people and also the name of their language.

I assume you meant the "Khmer Rouge" which was the name of the Communist army in Cambodia.

The name of its leader was Pol Pot.

He did indeed like genocide.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk question time for you

would you call pakistan's killing of East pakistanis genocide
Would you call Stalin killing off his own people genocide
What about Khmer , he was killing his own people too : is that genocide?

think about it for a few minutes and answer.

Maybe you should take a few more minutes to make your posts. (See Feralkid's post.) To answer your question it depends on whether the intent was to kill off a race, because you know that's what genocide means and all. Anyway, I'm done posting in the this troll thread. COW is much more entertaining than you or Rabidmongoose but unfortunately he won't share more about his racist incident.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Oh, but what will we do when the dictionary (aka Infohawk) won't post anymore?

I think that it's interesting that Infohawk is apparently the official dictionary for the world, especially for a term that nations and people have been discussing for years...and knows more about an issue than Nobel prize winning published authors on the very issue...despite infohawk only parroting his official status as the world's dictionary and offering nothing else.

Hm, wonder who the troll is...

 

[CanOWorms]

Maybe you should take a few more minutes to make your posts. (See Feralkid's post.) To answer your question it depends on whether the intent was to kill off a race, because you know that's what genocide means and all. Anyway, I'm done posting in the this troll thread. COW is much more entertaining than you or Rabidmongoose but unfortunately he won't share more about his racist incident.

You're redefining many words: genocide, intent, inaction. You're also ignoring many questions.

Are you denying that 4 million people died?
Are you denying that the famine started because of British policies?
Are you denying that Churchill thwarted attempts to stop the deaths?

Why does it matter what the population is? Why does new births in the population matter?

So you're claiming that actively thwarting relief because of ego, racism, and economic reasons is an inaction? Are you also claiming that the British did not create the situation that led to the genocide because of their ill-made policies? I want to understand how you can consider it an inaction.

You're going to great lengths to brush off one of the worst genocides of the 20th century. Your equivalent Neo-Nazi form would ask: Where is Hitler's intent? How do we know what he actually intended? Did he mean what he wrote and said? A genocide is so-and-so, not this.

It's the exact same situation here with Churchill - the same conditions, scenarios, and statements as Hitler. Yet somehow it's not genocide. Even one of Churchill's closest advisers said he was no different than Hitler on the issue.