It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Are you saying waging war using the poor against parts of your own country is not a heinous crime? because it is
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
The election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860 provoked the secession of the Southern States from the Union. South Carolina was the first to leave. By the time of the convening of a constitutional convention to establish the Confederacy in February 1861, six other states had joined her. The majority of the Southern leaders who attended the convention expected a peaceful secession; they did not anticipate that their action would lead to bloody conflict. They were wrong. Fort Sumter, lying in the harbor off the city of Charleston, South Carolina, would prove the point.
After her secession from the Union, South Carolina perceived herself as a sovereign state - the presence of Union forces in an armed fortress whose guns commanded her principal harbor was intolerable as it belied her independence. For President Lincoln the voluntary abandonment of this fortress was equally intolerable as it would be a tacit acknowledgment of South Carolina's independent status.
Originally posted by demonseed
Um.. this thread is aweful, and here's why:
We got into a "fight" with native americans
Japan attacked us first.
The civil war was a "war"....
What did the Jews, Gypsies and other minorities do in Germany?
They existed. They where killed for existing.
The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Human rights, as laid out in the US Bill of Rights or the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concern the rights of individuals.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sissel
No. Genocide has a specific meaning.
en.wikipedia.org...
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
You can't just make words mean what you want them to mean.edit on 4-11-2012 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
So the thread is just a question
The US has committed heinous crimes against the native americans
the US has committed heinous crimes against their own brothers and country men during the civil war
and these are just two examples
The nazis tried to destroy all the jews
The US tried to kill all the natives.
What the hell makes us so much better from the rest of the world?
Originally posted by Scouser640
We got into a "fight" with native americans
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sissel
Genocide is specifically targeting a particular group based on qualifications listed above. The "in part" portion of the definition is still in contention as to it's meaning.
In my opinion, based on the facts, I believe the portion "in part" needs to be narrowed to have more meaning in the context of genocidal attempts by governments world wide. Not just ascribed to anyone who may die in a war.
Okay, then explain the civil war in respect to this, and your opinion? You brought it up in the thread. How does this apply to Nazi's?
Since you claim to know so much about all of this, and are so opinionated, surely you must be able to explain how this, goes along with your beliefs in all of this.
Nazism, exists in America, By it's own policies, and what it does to the rest of the world, in one form or another, and the point of this thread was to prove that wrong, Have you yet?
Originally posted by demonseed
Originally posted by lobotomizemecapin
So the thread is just a question
The US has committed heinous crimes against the native americans
the US has committed heinous crimes against their own brothers and country men during the civil war
and these are just two examples
The nazis tried to destroy all the jews
The US tried to kill all the natives.
What the hell makes us so much better from the rest of the world?
Um.. this thread is aweful, and here's why:
We got into a "fight" with native americans
Japan attacked us first.
The civil war was a "war"....
What did the Jews, Gypsies and other minorities do in Germany?
They existed. They where killed for existing.
I'm not saying other countries don't commit genocide's, but you cannot compare a genocide to a war. Completely different.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sissel
Okay, then explain the civil war in respect to this, and your opinion? You brought it up in the thread. How does this apply to Nazi's?
The Civil War was a fundamental separation of ideology. An attempt by states to rebel against the Constitutional authority of the Union. As a result a war erupted started by the South.
It was not Genocide.
Originally posted by Sissel
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Sissel
Okay, then explain the civil war in respect to this, and your opinion? You brought it up in the thread. How does this apply to Nazi's?
The Civil War was a fundamental separation of ideology. An attempt by states to rebel against the Constitutional authority of the Union. As a result a war erupted started by the South.
It was not Genocide.
Sorry, but I disagree. No matter what a group is, if it is large, and in the way of war, when they are killed it's genocide, regardless of religious faith, ethnicity, or whatever.
You just backed up the US committing genocide based on your interpretation of the word. Hence you are defending Nazism.