Reply #109: By the international law definition of the term... no, but just barely

[nadinbrzezinski]

that said, we have committed plenty of war crimes.

Now here is the definition ok

Article 2 of this defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

This is article 2 of the UN Declaration.

We have not stated any of these goals.

We have not forcibly transfered people (now our surrogates have)

We have not prevented the births of people within the group, which you may or may not argue that our surrogates have.

And we are saying that we are trying to respect civilians.

That said, our surrogates (the Shia) have engaged in ethnic cleansing et al

So you could argue that we have not... by the letter of the definition

But we have stood to the side. This makes us party to it, at least by some international scholars

In an international court proving things like aggressive war is far easier. Hell, I think I can do it that with one hand tied behind my back.

Now this does not mean we have not unleashed hell on earth over there, we have.

Ah, having done this for real (as in human rights in the field) I am careful about using certain terms... mostly because they are HARD to prove... and I am sure a much younger counterpart of mine is engaging right now in the same practices I did twenty years ago over another front in the war for the Empire... interviews... and filing them for the war crimes tribunal that I doubt will ever come.

Sorry, by the way, with the gray as it can get response