This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Genocide: What is behind irrational evil perpetrated by ordinary people?

Genocide: What is behind irrational evil perpetrated by ordinary people? - Comments

Jay G's Avatar Comment 1 by Jay G

I think genocide is here to stay. We've (I mean humanity) been discussing and analyzing genocide since WWII and no matter how much we talk about it and try to understand it, we continue to indulge in our passion for killing.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:32:24 UTC | #933609

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 2 by AtheistEgbert

The best explanation for evil and how human societies organize that I've come across was discussed by Ernest Becker in his unfinished book Escape from Evil. He brought together various different fields like Anthropology and Psychoanalysis to show that at the root of all human delusion was a denial of death, and therefore the human desire to seek immortality.

It's this desire to hoard resources, money or power, and to signify objects and people of special sacred significance that leads to group identification and tribal elitism, and the consequential tribal morality of us and them.

Bruce Hood in his book Supersense, explains how our own survival mechanisms lead us to superstition and supernaturalism (and therefore religion) in the same effort for cheating death.

John Gray writes much the same in his book The Immortalization Commission, and shows how the quest for immortality still influences humanists and scientists.

But unlike Gray and other pessimists, I think human evil can be overcome with reason and compassion.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:06:35 UTC | #933623

Jay G's Avatar Comment 3 by Jay G

Camus finishes his novel The Plague by pointing out that evil might be dormant for a time, but it always returns.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:09:36 UTC | #933626

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

In group, out group evolutionary reasons. I am surprised You didn't think of that since the evidence among hunter gatherers and mixed agriculturalists, that are extant, for this evolutionary underpinning is rather well known.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:59:20 UTC | #933643

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 5 by Helga Vieirch

Comment 1 by Jay G I think genocide is here to stay

I hope that if you take another look at the documentary, you will reconsider your position. That genocide is only going to persist so long as we permit any leader to assume he can get away with it. Or so this detailed research suggests.

Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

There conclusion of this documentary was that a) genocide could almost always have been stopped, since indications that it was going to happen were seen well in advanced. furthermore, it was undertaken by leaders (usually a small group) who see it on motion as part of rational strategy AND KNOWING THEY COULD BET AWAY WITH IT.

This is not some ancient behavioural algorithm set in motion by passions and hatreds.

Genocide, the greatest horror of cruelty and evil, is set in motion, not by madmen or psychopaths, and not by men acting out of strong religious or racist hatreds and passions.

It is, and this is the most chilling thing, a set of events set in motion by rational men acting out of what appear to them, perfectly reasonable necessities.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:59:16 UTC | #933683

tadmjones's Avatar Comment 6 by tadmjones

Peikoff's Ominus Parallels gives a great analysis of the underlying causes of such brutality, mainly the philosophic premises of the culture.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:16:20 UTC | #933703

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 7 by Red Dog

Comment 5 by Helga Vierich :

Comment 1 by Jay G I think genocide is here to stay

I hope that if you take another look at the documentary, you will reconsider your position. That genocide is only going to persist so long as we permit any leader to assume he can get away with it. Or so this detailed research suggests.

Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

There conclusion of this documentary was that a) genocide could almost always have been stopped, since indications that it was going to happen were seen well in advanced. furthermore, it was undertaken by leaders (usually a small group) who see it on motion as part of rational strategy AND KNOWING THEY COULD BET AWAY WITH IT.

I haven't watched the documentary yet although I plan to. So my opinion may change after I see it. However, I think you need to be remember that everyone has an agenda, including the people behind the Kofy campaign and the people who made this documentary (funded no doubt by money coming from large US corporations).

One of the things that the US military-industrial complex has been dealing with since the Soviets betrayed them by unilaterally declaring peace in the cold war is how to justify the insane, totally out of proportion spending by the US on "Defense".

After the Cold War, in the 80's this was a major topic in conservative think tanks. Its amazing how open they were about it: "how can we justify to continue spending as much as the rest of the world combined on our military?" One thing they came up with was the idea of waging war for what are essentially Liberal values. It was this kind of thinking that had the Clinton administration commit the US to war in Bosnia.

This is the problem I have with campaigns such as Kofy and before that Darfur. Its a way for people on the left to be co-opted into supporting usage and funding of the US military. IMO no matter how bad a situation is, it is never improved by having the US military start dropping bombs followed (as they inevitably are) by the CIA doing who knows what since what they do is classified.

So getting back to the documentary, when you slay "AND KNOWING THEY COULD BET AWAY WITH IT." That sounds like it could be used to justify Team America World Police going in and righting wrongs which I think is always a bad idea.

Which is in no way to say that I think genocide is acceptable or shouldn't be resisted. That is what the UN is for. Of course sanctions and other UN type actions take longer and aren't as emotionally gratifying as declaring Shock and Awe on the bad guys but I think ultimately the Shock and Awe and Genocide are essentially symptoms of the same impulses.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:53:56 UTC | #933735

frax71's Avatar Comment 8 by frax71

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:02:30 UTC | #933747

Misfire's Avatar Comment 9 by Misfire

I'm reminded of Dostoyevsky's ominous (inferred) quote, "[without God,] everything is allowed." Dropping the notion of "God," I'd say that without empathy, or the recognition of value in others, and without reason and questioning, any awful thing can happen.

I'm sure there's a whole convergence of added factors too: hatred, fear, groupthink, and all the standard reasons given. It's important to see what must be missing, too.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:09:41 UTC | #933749

frax71's Avatar Comment 10 by frax71

My problem here is with Goldhagen himself. I have not watched the whole video yet but I do intend to. So I don't yet know to what extent Goldhagens thesis (mapped out in his book "Hitlers Willing Executioners") that Genocides are the result of an "eliminationist impulse". is being to put use in the video

However, I do know his scholarship has been questioned as has his integrity as an historian

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:16:54 UTC | #933750

VrijVlinder's Avatar Comment 11 by VrijVlinder

Normal people have a hard time understanding how can mass murder become systematic without anyone there to complain.

This might help understand how normal people can be convinced to willingly cause harm to another. It happens to be another human flaw. One would think 1 holocaust is enough to learn from it and avoid happening again. But this has not happened. There have been more, Ruanda is an example of violence between rival tribes. If you can't assimilate them, kill them and their children. It is one of the worst human flaws for an intelligent being to continue perpetrating this.

Milgram experiment or Factors Affecting Obedience

But this exists in nature too. The killing of the offspring by a rival male, or the killing of the females with offspring by a rival male. Genocide refers to obliterating that entire gene pool . That was the philosophy of arian nation. To remove genetic factors from society.

In Sweden they used forced sterilization to clean the gene pool from hereditary disease. In effect committing some sort of genocide .

Compulsory sterilization

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:19:04 UTC | #933762

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 12 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:55:44 UTC | #933772

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 13 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 23:43:54 UTC | #933782

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 14 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:34:49 UTC | #933789

RJMoore's Avatar Comment 15 by RJMoore

Comment 14 by Neodarwinian

But what about the 'special relationship'?!

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:52:20 UTC | #933793

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 16 by Neodarwinian

@ RJMoore

That is to be defended to the death as history shows, but spelling is where the ' special relationship ' coverage breaks down. Tea instead of coffee is another one of those uncovered areas.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 02:46:40 UTC | #933817

canadian_right's Avatar Comment 17 by canadian_right

Humans have been a very violent species in the past, and continue to be violent in wide swaths of the world. The good news is that violence has been decreasing for most of human history when measured as what percentage of the population dies by murder (including wars, executions, crime, etc...). Five hundred years ago if you had been reading about the Rwandan genocide you would have thought it a pretty normal occurrence. Here is a short list of atrocities from that era:

538 CE - 300,000 adult males massacred by Ostrogoths and Burgundians in Milan 614 CE - Persian Shah Chosroes allows massacre of 90,000 Christians in Jerusalem Siege of Amorium: 70,000 Moslem and 30,000 Christians. 850 CE - 100,000 Paulicans executed by Empress Theodora

Today, most of the civilised world is shocked by such acts, they are not normal, but actually against the law. You are much less likely to die at the hands of your fellow man today that at any time in history.

Things are getting better.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:31:35 UTC | #933827

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 18 by Premiseless

I'd say it is rooted in desires to compete and outdo others. Also to gain whatever one sees as ones share of the life one is in. Very subjective - especially at a tribal level of magnification.

The would be winners are more garnered to dominate when they go tribal.

Tribalism still prevails, whether you look at the markets or in fact any areas where dominance rewards with magnified desires.

Idealism and equitability are of no consequence to a tribal code. Win at whatever wins is the ethic.

If idealism and equitability are to dominate, it will likely take tribalism and dominance to effect this and so a pseudo desire is born that then replicates the same sorts of elitism, laying waste those for whom neither time or education are available to gather speed and thus engage with whatever the revolution happens to be. Too many poisons of consciousness/ lifestyle prevail to gather a common theme under an umbrella of equitable and humanitarian unity. Too many want to overturn the misfortune of their plight or to increase the dominance they are afforded within the span of their own lifetime in the midst of inequalities that have been forged over millennia.

The experiential of each persons short life dominates the majority of all agendas. Because this is, at any time, a vastness of inequality, the recipe is fixed in motion for repetition.

The paradox is born where to sacrifice your life for the future lives of others is an exploitable desire. It is also a strange one. How can the unborn be more deserving than the nasty slave drivers? How can you know this to be your cause? Those who see this get the powerless to sacrifice in there behalf in the here and now. In effect this is what slavery has always been. Enforced charity of the lives of others in behalf of the dominant individuals who arrange tribes of entrepreneurs. Before anyone has even the idealism to want to become a charity for others, often they are enslaved to another's profit already. This is the paradox of charity. Most people have already spent most of their best years slaving for the benefit of others, often with little recognition and often rewarded with contempt. Such is my measure of humanity and its collective comprehension of the tangle we are all born to! It often only recognises overt signs of any values it claims virtuous. This in itself is a blinkered indulgence.

Both desires and hatreds are often misplaced and shot off as some ill informed microscopic perspective amounting to universal ignorance. We are very much like the troubled crust of Earth with its rumblings and grindings, always destroying and always changing our directions. I see no sign of change or any potential to effect one. The oppressed will always fall and be forgotten by tomorrow partygoers.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:45:30 UTC | #933871

Shannon1981's Avatar Comment 19 by Shannon1981

I think religion justifies many things the world would consider to be otherwise intolerable or irrational,but is hardly the sole cause. For instance, usually if you talked to yourself, people would question your sanity. However, isn't that what prayer is? If any other organization or social group were linked to as much genocide and other atrocities over the history of time as religion is, people would recoil in horror at ever being associated with it, but not religion.

But no, not just religion. The only hope is that there are more people not hard wired to need a personal god coming along and speaking up more and more soon. If that is the case, they won't be hard to recruit to the right side, since their indoctrination (if there is any) will almost essentially undo itself. That is what happened to me. Despite being raised in a very religious environment, I though most of it was a load of crap by age 9 or so, particularly the Genesis story. I never needed it, and by 21, was deprogrammed. So, hopefully more people evolve in that direction..

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:37:32 UTC | #933888

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat

Does anyone here want to discuss what is really behind these kinds of events?

The essence of genocide, in almost every case I can think of, is a perception of an existential threat of some sort to one's group identity. Where it comes across as a 'we are better than them' type of thing......that's only because every group by definition considers itself better.

Thus although Hitler, for example, portrayed the Jews as 'inferior'.......that perceived inferiority was not itself the cause of the genocide. Rather, as Hitler quite clearly states in Mein Kampf, the issue was one of the threat of Jews to the identity of Germany.

Thus, in a perverse sort of way, the genocide is perceived by the perpetrators as a means of pre-emptive self defence.

Ultimately its all down to exactly the same sort of group identities that cause wars, sectarian conflicts, racial hatreds, etc. I suspect that evil in the name of this group or that will continue to exist as long as such groups do.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:07:34 UTC | #933927

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 21 by Red Dog

Comment 20 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Does anyone here want to discuss what is really behind these kinds of events?

The essence of genocide, in almost every case I can think of, is a perception of an existential threat of some sort to one's group identity. Where it comes across as a 'we are better than them' type of thing......that's only because every group by definition considers itself better.

The causes are complex but I think you are overlooking an essential one. In all cases of genocide that I know of some group had the ability to gain significant power/money by demonizing another group.

Look at the first example in the video, the Mayan genocide committed in Guatemala. In no sense could you say that the Mayan people represented any kind of a threat even in the imagination of the Guatemalan death squads. They were an isolated indigenous people living alone and wanting to be left alone. The "threat" the Mayans posed was that they were on land that had resources large corporations wanted to exploit and it was easier and cheaper to just murder them than to deal with them in a just manner.

The same for the Jews in Germany. Yes, Hitler claimed they were an existential threat but that was clearly nonsense. He used the Jews to unite the non-Jews in Germany. In the process he solidified his power and also many Nazis made fortunes expropriating the wealth of Jews.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:27:29 UTC | #933949

Big Gus's Avatar Comment 22 by Big Gus

Whilst it is certainly true in the "West" that things are, or rather have improved significantly over, say the last 500 years. Most people would be shaken to the core when confronted by just how cheap life is on most of the rest of the planet. I've seen these things close up during my military service and I'm forced to the conclusion that humans carry the capacity to do these things and it doesn't take much to bring it out. 24 hours after the food runs out they'll all be clubbing each other to death over the last tin of beans.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:25:04 UTC | #933973

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 23 by Helga Vieirch

Comment 10 by frax71

I am also a bit dismayed at some of the statements Goldhagen makes about the knowing complicity of the German people during the Holocaust. My own family, on my mothers side, was mixed in background - with a history of intermarriage with non-Jews. The main reasons they survived is because the whole family and all their neighbours and friends steadfastly refused to give up any hint of this to the authorities. Neither my parents, nor their parents, were aware, even during the war, of exactly what was going on in the concentration camps unless they all for some reason saw it necessary to lie to me repeatedly. In my own opinion, then, Goldhagen overstates the general anti-semitism, at least in the part of Germany where my family originated.

This does not however, negate in any way the ultimate thesis. If the worst mass murders and most horrible suffering throughout history have been perpetrated, not by raving fanatics nor by out of control mobs driven, but rather by rational men making cool-headed decisions, in quiet rooms, on the basis of politics and economics, and then carried out by men calmingly following orders… then we have a problem.

Moreover, we have a problem on this site. If the Richard Dawkins Foundation is promoting rationality, and reason, in order to oppose human suffering and injustice, then how can we proceed from here? If there is evidence (and it is far more evidence than to be found in this one mans work on genocide) than exactly WHAT can be done to make sure that government policy, while based on reason and rationality, do NOT fall into the same trap of justifying almost unimaginalbe suffering?

Since the cited "reasons" for genocidal policies, on the part of governments, most commonly hinge on political expediency or economic efficiency, perhaps I might suggest that any and all government policies citing both or either of these should be met with skepticism, and indeed, if there is potential harm to a group of people involved through their "forcible removal" or otherwise mandated elimination from the landscape of a development project, howls of protest and active resistance is no longer merely optional?

It is time, I think, when it seems fair to ask, whether religion is really what is behind most of the suffering and injustice we see going on around us?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:54:01 UTC | #933982

Modesti's Avatar Comment 24 by Modesti

I live in Republic of Croatia. One of formers Social Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. I was in my twenties, when war raged on that territory. Genocide? Croatian did that on Serbs, Serbs did that on Croatians, and both did it to Bosnians. Croats wanted Great Croatia, Serbs wanted Great Serbia – ethnically pure nation. But in my opinion, that is only a term, because sometimes I think that „genocide“ is a political term (a politically correct mask) which is used to justify barbarism, savage, and slaughter that exists only for one simple reason, and that reason is that slaughter was allowed. Trust me – ones when doors that allowed one human being to kill (butcher) other are opened, there are no rules. There is no plan to kill. No big picture like „genocide“ (that is the term that is given later, after slaughters). Butchers kill for pleasure. Only when the hunt season is open, you have political excuse in „genocide“.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:04:37 UTC | #933984

VrijVlinder's Avatar Comment 25 by VrijVlinder

It is time, I think, when it seems fair to ask, whether religion is really what is behind most of the suffering and injustice we see going on around us?

Religion is a weapon of mass destruction . Those who make the decisions about the fate of humanity are the heads of the religion. They do not think about the people they only think about themselves . The church and the money. To make sure it continues un deterred by war or genocide. You can kill the people but you can't kill god.

The pope was in on it with the nazi and this pope today was a nazi protégée . Of course religion can be blamed. The evidence of their atrocities is clearly documented.

All animals can be capable of violence. Humans are no different . How does murder become genocide? When the intention is to wipe out an entire race of people. Race is often attributed to religious orientation and not necessarily whether they can be proven to belong to a different race.

In America , a person was considered to be black and originating from Africa if they had darker skin than everybody. DNA tests have shown many black people have no African markers at all yet African markers are present in white people. This discovery alone should have brought people together, but not many were willing to accept this fact.

Hitler created a form of Christianity which did not catch on. But shows he understood how to gain control of people. So did all the ruthless leaders . And they knew about this human flaw of obedience to kill upon request. It is about mob mentality and obedience. Contradictory but both feed each other.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:34:49 UTC | #933993

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 26 by Paula Kirby

this pope today was a nazi protégée

What?! Are you referring to the fact that this pope, along with countless thousands of other boys, was a member of the Hitlerjugend as a teenager? Were they all Nazi protégés? Because if they were, I wonder that the Nazis ever had time to invade Poland or exterminate Jews: looking out for all those Hitler Youth lads would have been a full time job.

Honestly, there are any number of very serious accusations to be levelled against the current pope. But that he was a Nazi protégé is really going too far. Let's stay rational and not get carried away, eh?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:52:42 UTC | #933995

VrijVlinder's Avatar Comment 27 by VrijVlinder

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941

Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939[9]—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother.[10] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[11] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer (air force child soldier).[10] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry

Pope Benedict XVI

There is plenty to back this up. And it is alarming. It is not going too far. It is quite offensive actually. Why did they not complain about eugenics? Despite being unenthusiastic he was tolerated. All those youth were protégées .

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:46:22 UTC | #934005

Paula Kirby's Avatar Comment 28 by Paula Kirby

Vrij, as your own link makes clear, membership of the HJ was required by law for almost all boys from the age of 14. There was another Nazi youth movement for boys aged 10 to 14, membership of which was not compulsory - and there is no suggestion that Ratzinger was ever a member of that. If he'd really been a Nazi supporter you might have thought he'd have joined up before he was positively obliged to by law.

In 1943, when he joined the Flakhelfer, Ratzinger would have been 16. And while we're exchanging Wikipedia links, this one makes it clear that he did not volunteer for it, but was conscripted. Doubtless you as a 16 year old would have had the courage to stand up to the might of the Nazi regime, but I am quite sure I would not.

It galls me to be in the position of defending this damn pope, but it galls me more to see wild and unfair allegations made on what is supposed to be a site promoting reason.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:12:42 UTC | #934014

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 29 by Red Dog

Comment 23 by Helga Vierich :

Comment 10 by frax71

This does not however, negate in any way the ultimate thesis. If the worst mass murders and most horrible suffering throughout history have been perpetrated, not by raving fanatics nor by out of control mobs driven, but rather by rational men making cool-headed decisions, in quiet rooms, on the basis of politics and economics, and then carried out by men calmingly following orders… then we have a problem.

I agree with that. My problem with the documentary -- and I've only gotten through about 1/3 of it so far I find it very difficult to watch so this may be contradicted later -- is that from what I've seen so far he doesn't get into the actual political issues. The US government, specifically the Reagen administration -- was absolutely complicit with the Guatemalan government in their genocide. They knew what was going on. They had CIA and DoD people on the ground working with the Guatemalan war criminals. Have you heard of Jennifer Harbury? She is a US lawyer who married a man in the Mayan resistance who was captured and tortured to death by the Guatemalans. Her story about trying to contact the Reagen administration and get any kind of basic support for a man that she loved and knew was being tortured to death at the time is heart breaking.

These kinds of documentaries that just wring their hands about how evil humans are without showing the larger economic and political context behind these crimes in my opinion really don't help much. For example he said something like "Guatemalan leaders said the Mayans posed a threat to the well being of the country but they really threatened no one" That's just wrong. They did threaten someone, they threatened the interests of the Guatemalan Junta and the US government/corporations who wanted the resources on their land and knew the easiest way to get it was to just eliminate the people.

Moreover, we have a problem on this site.

I agree very much although perhaps not completely in the way you mean. Look at just about any thread and you can find endless comments filled with hateful petty rhetoric about anyone that believes in God. The desire to find an "other" is hard to resist even with people who say they believe in reason.

If the Richard Dawkins Foundation is promoting rationality, and reason, in order to oppose human suffering and injustice, then how can we proceed from here? If there is evidence (and it is far more evidence than to be found in this one mans work on genocide) than exactly WHAT can be done to make sure that government policy, while based on reason and rationality, do NOT fall into the same trap of justifying almost unimaginalbe suffering?

I agree. Its why I've said in the past that just being against religion is not enough. We need to be FOR things like reason, compassion, etc. And that includes being reasonable and compassionate with people that we disagree with.

Since the cited "reasons" for genocidal policies, on the part of governments, most commonly hinge on political expediency or economic efficiency, perhaps I might suggest that any and all government policies citing both or either of these should be met with skepticism, and indeed, if there is potential harm to a group of people involved through their "forcible removal" or otherwise mandated elimination from the landscape of a development project, howls of protest and active resistance is no longer merely optional?

It is time, I think, when it seems fair to ask, whether religion is really what is behind most of the suffering and injustice we see going on around us?

I agree and I would go further. If someone is for science, compassion, and tolerance and against genocide then they are my friends not my enemies, even if they happen to disagree with me about the existence of God.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:28:19 UTC | #934017

VrijVlinder's Avatar Comment 30 by VrijVlinder

Comment 28 by Paula Kirby:

And you think those killed in concentration camps went willingly? There was a resistance movement and in those days boys 14 were already considered men. Young men. Often joining the enemy spares one's life that is true. It would also question why he did not sacrifice his life or his family resisting the nazi . How can someone expect martyrdom when the person decides to save themselves.

This is a perfect example of why people fail to prevent genocide. They save themselves. And forget the history which created the destruction to begin with. What is the point of this thread if it is not about trying to understand how the resulting genocide is endorsed and committed by normal people, by proxy. Whether it is enforced or not.

Many people helped the Jews escape death and they paid with their lives. Hitler youth were protected from this fate. I do not see how there is any value in this discussion. You are ignoring the very reason why it becomes genocide. Why some are selected to live and some to die. He was selected to live. Instead of fighting oppression he becomes an oppressor of people where is the merit?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:21:55 UTC | #934028