Biggest Criminals in History

[Bosh]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Intent is the backbone of the definition of genocide.

Killing Cambodians because they're cambodian is genocide when it reaches a large enough scale. Killing 2 million cambodians because they're guilty of crimes against the revolution or whatever is just mass murder.

Exactly.

[KrazyHorse]

The definition you're providing for genocide is obviously overbroad, and is not the one provided by any standard dictionary of the English language.

[BeBMan]

It's the one which is relevant on the international stage, you guys may like it or not. They don't use dictionaries in international law (at least not to get the defs from there)...

And to be honest, your criticism is valid, but it only shows the general difficulties with the problem. In fact, there are experts who think the def is too narrow, and that for example political groups should explicitly included.

[KrazyHorse]

They don't use that definition as stated in international law either, no matter what they claim. They simply outline genocide vaguely and then leave it up to the actual judges to decide, using it as a guideline.

So arguing about whether or not it was genocide based simply on that definition is dumb. We've already pointed out that strict adherence to it as stated is ridiculous, so either start coming up with examples of the international community prosecuting crimes such as Pol Pot's as genocide, or use the standard English definition of the word, which is much more specific.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, according to that definition, the one child policy in China is also genocide. Way to make the word meaningless.

[KrazyHorse]

Pol Pot wasn't attempting to destroy a people. If anything, he was trying to do good for a people, in his own twisted way.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Pol Pot wasn't attempting to destroy a people. If anything, he was trying to do good for a people, in his own twisted way.

This is precisely why he is the worst of the bunch. It's not like he merely provoked an agricultural crisis, complete with famines. He killed almost all of the intellectual class. He used untol violence against the common man. All for the common man's greater good.

True, "genocide" doesn't really fit here, because his aim wasn't the obliteration of his population. However, it was utterly criminal, and the worse crime the planet has ever known IMO.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Pol Pot wasn't attempting to destroy a people. If anything, he was trying to do good for a people, in his own twisted way.

Hitler believed his war was for the good of the German people...

Still wicked and destructive madness, though.

.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So arguing about whether or not it was genocide based simply on that definition is dumb. We've already pointed out that strict adherence to it as stated is ridiculous, so either start coming up with examples of the international community prosecuting crimes such as Pol Pot's as genocide, or use the standard English definition of the word, which is much more specific.

Maybe you can explain me that:

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/KR_Law_trans.06.09.2001.html

Especially Article 4 there.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Hitler believed his war was for the good of the German people...

hitler wasn't bent on genociding the Germans, but the Jews. He certainly didn't want the good of the Jews.

[Jon Miller]

^ what I was going ot post

KJ<

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by curtsibling


Hitler believed his war was for the good of the German people...

Still wicked and destructive madness, though.

.

I'm pretty sure he didn't think his actions were good for the Jews.

I never accused Hitler of committing genocide against the German people...

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm pretty sure he didn't think his actions were good for the Jews.

Pol Pot didn't care much for the intellectuals or capitalists either.

[SIZE=1] I never accused Hitler of committing genocide against the German people...

I am not talking about genocide.

I am talking about misguided actions that lead to total death/doom.

.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BeBro


Maybe you can explain me that:

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/KR_Law_trans.06.09.2001.html

Especially Article 4 there.

a) I'm not sure that Pol Pot didn't commit genocide (though this wasn't his main crime). He might well have (in fact, probably did) commit genocide against Catholics, ethnic Chinese, etc, whose killings form a minority of the total killings

b) The current country of Cambodia may be applying the term genocide to actions which would not be tried as genocide under international law. Just because Cambodia calls it that doesn't make it so. And this proves why having an overbroad definition is very dangerous. Even if the international community would never think of prosecuting an individual murder as genocide, the fact that their definition does not preclude it enables somebody who has other motivations to prosecute it as such by referring to the UN definition.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by curtsibling


Pol Pot didn't care much for the intellectuals or capitalists either

Neither of which are groups whose systematic extermination qualifies as genocide under any definition presented yet.