Rašyti komentarą...
Nuoroda nukopijuota
× Pranešti klaidą
tik nusikaltimas pries donski yra simtaprocentinis, gi pvz. gojaus nuzudymas (ar kokio arabo) greiciausiai geriausiu atveju tebus 10% nusikaltimo. gal donskis galetu papasakot, kuo skirias mirt nuo bado vokieciu ir rusu konclagery? ir kuriam konclagery mirtis 100-procentine? ar ne tik nuo konclagerio, bet dar ir nuo aukos tautybes skirias?
be pykcio ir be pagarbos
be pykcio ir be pagarbos
Donski Donski koks tu nuogas!!!!! ir net nebandai prisidengti, manydamas kad sio politinio korektiskumo terroro laikais jau niekas nebedris to pasakyti!? pamirsai pamineti, kad genocidas dar ir geras biznis, o biznyje kaip zinia nepaprastai naudinga tureti monopoli. Turkai armenu nedabaige pjauti, nes tiesiog nepasieke, kaip ir hutai nesugebejo isgaudyti visu tutsiu, kaip ir psichopatai naciai nepasieke amerikos, kanados, anglijos zydu. O siaip istorijoje Kramonjonieciai ispjove visus iki paskutinio neandartaliecius - neliko nei vieno. Taip, Leonidai, lietuviu tauta nepatyre genocido, tai net sveikai mastanciam arkliui aisku, bet ir be zydu buvo daug tautu kurios istorijoje patyre ne kiek ne mazesni genocida, o jei vertinsime zmogu individa kaip vertybe, tai WWII metu Ukrainieciu buvo isgalabyta daugiausia, o baltarusu didziausias procentas, tik del ju niekam aisku galvos neskauda
"Sutikime, kad šiuo požiūriu nei šv. Baltramiejaus naktis 1572 metais Paryžiuje, nei apskritai baisus ir kraugeriškas hugenotų žudymas Prancūzijoje, nei inkvizicijos teroras ir masinis moterų, „raganių“, „burtininkų“, žydų bei homoseksualų žudymas viduramžiais, nei Vandėjos naikinimas ir ištisų kaimų išžudymas 1789-1794 metais, siunčiant juos po giljotina Prancūzijos revoliucijos metu, kad ir kokie sukrečiantys, vis dėlto nėra genocido atvejai. Visus tuos žmones, kad ir koks baisus būtų jų likimas, galėjo išgelbėti perėjimas į priešo ar persekiotojo pusę."
Nesutiksime. žmonės apšaukti raganiais, raganom neturėjo jokių galimybių net norėdami tai atšaukti (o patikėkit jie lb norėjo). Žydai negali staiga virsti ne žydais, p***rai staiga virsti heteroseksuliais...
Kai randi faktiškai neteisingą vietą straipsnyje, jis netenka savo vertės. Smalsu, paskaityt, kai toliau greičiausiai bus aikčiojama dėl holokausto, bet apsiesiu.
Nesutiksime. žmonės apšaukti raganiais, raganom neturėjo jokių galimybių net norėdami tai atšaukti (o patikėkit jie lb norėjo). Žydai negali staiga virsti ne žydais, p***rai staiga virsti heteroseksuliais...
Kai randi faktiškai neteisingą vietą straipsnyje, jis netenka savo vertės. Smalsu, paskaityt, kai toliau greičiausiai bus aikčiojama dėl holokausto, bet apsiesiu.
Kiek kitoks, nei Donskio, požiūris į genocidą ir šios sąvokos taikymą, išdėstytas "Los Angeles Times":
THE GENOCIDE LOOPHOL
Claims of the "greater good" too often let mass murderers off the hook
Last week, Russia's lower house of parliament passed a resolution insisting that Josef Stalin's man-made 1932-33 famine -- called the Holodomor in Ukrainian -- wasn't genocide.
Virtually no one, including the Russians, disputes that the Soviet government was involved in the deliberate forced starving of millions of people. But the Russian resolution indignantly insists: "There is no historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines." It notes that victims included "different peoples and nationalities living largely in agricultural areas" of the Soviet Union.
Translation: We didn't kill millions of farmers and their families because they were Ukrainians, we killed millions of Ukrainians because they were farmers.
And that's all it takes to be acquitted of genocide.
The United Nations defines the crime as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Intentionally left out of this definition are "modern" political labels for people: the poor, religious people, the middle class, etc.
The oversight was deliberate. The word "genocide" was coined by a Polish Jew, Raphael Lemkin, who was responding to Winston Churchill's 1941 lament that "we are in the presence of a crime without a name." Lemkin, a champion of human rights who lost 49 relatives in the Holocaust, gave it a name a few years later. But to get the U.N. to recognize genocide as a specific crime, he made compromises.
Under pressure from the Soviets, Lemkin supported excluding efforts to murder "political" groups from the U.N. resolution on genocide adopted in 1948. Under the more narrow definition that was approved, it's genocide to try to wipe out Roma (formerly known as Gypsies), but it's not necessarily genocide to liquidate, say, people without permanent addresses. You can't slaughter "Catholics", but you can wipe out "religious people" and dodge the genocide charge.
That type of absurdity is what Gerard Alexander, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, decries as "Enlightenment bias." Reviewing Samantha Power's moving 2003 book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" for the Hedgehog Review, Alexander observed that this bias leaves the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century -- self-described Marxist-Leninists -- somewhat off the hook.
In Power's book, surely the most influential writing on genocide in a generation, she scolds the U.S. -- often justly -- for not doing more to stop systematized slaughter. But by focusing so narrowly on the U.N.-style definition of genocide, she implicitly upholds a moral hierarchy of evil, which in effect renders mass murder a second-tier crime if it is done in the name of social progress, modernization or other Enlightenment ideals.
This can lead to a dangerous way of thinking in which people who are perceived to be standing in the way of progress -- middle-class farmers opposed to collectivization, aristocrats, reactionaries -- can be more forgivably slaughtered than ethnic groups because they're allegedly part of the problem, not the solution. After all, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet.
In general, the Soviets and the Red Chinese elude the genocide charge -- and hence the status of ultimate villains -- despite having murdered scores of millions of people in the 20th century, in large part because their victims stood in the way of progress. Kulaks, or independent farmers, opposed Stalin's plan for collectivization, and so they were murdered for that "greater good." Yet Mao Tse-tung and Stalin aren't widely regarded as being as evil as Adolf Hitler because they were "modernizers." Just look how the Russians have no problem copping to the charge of mass murder but recoil at the suggestion that it was racially motivated.
It's a wrongheaded distinction. Murder is murder, whether the motive stems from bigotry or the pursuit of allegedly enlightened social planning. And that's usually a false distinction anyway. Racial genocide is often rationalized as a form of progress by those responsible. Under the Holodomor, Ukrainian culture was systematically erased by the Russian Soviets, who saw it as inferior or expendable. No doubt the Sudanese janjaweed in Darfur and the Chinese People's Liberation Army in Tibet believe that they are "modernizers" too.
Or consider the ultimate racially motivated genocide, the Holocaust. Götz Aly and Susanne Heim demonstrate in their brilliant book, "Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction," that the Final Solution, particularly in Lemkin's own Poland, was perceived by the social engineers and young economists overseeing it as a "modernizing project that would transform society."
In Germany, the effort to crush Jewry was intertwined with the effort to nationalize the economy and eliminate small and independent businesses. For German social engineers, the Jews were convenient guinea pigs for their economic experiments. The first test cases, of course, were not the Jews but the mentally ill, who were classified as an economic liability in Germany's 1936 Four-Year Plan of economic modernization.
Of course, the climate of anti-Semitism made the Holocaust possible, but so did Enlightenment bias, which holds that almost anything can be justified in the name of progress.
I doubt such distinctions would have been of much comfort to Lemkin's 49 relatives.
Jonah Goldberg
"Los Angeles Times"
April 8, 2008
THE GENOCIDE LOOPHOL
Claims of the "greater good" too often let mass murderers off the hook
Last week, Russia's lower house of parliament passed a resolution insisting that Josef Stalin's man-made 1932-33 famine -- called the Holodomor in Ukrainian -- wasn't genocide.
Virtually no one, including the Russians, disputes that the Soviet government was involved in the deliberate forced starving of millions of people. But the Russian resolution indignantly insists: "There is no historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines." It notes that victims included "different peoples and nationalities living largely in agricultural areas" of the Soviet Union.
Translation: We didn't kill millions of farmers and their families because they were Ukrainians, we killed millions of Ukrainians because they were farmers.
And that's all it takes to be acquitted of genocide.
The United Nations defines the crime as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Intentionally left out of this definition are "modern" political labels for people: the poor, religious people, the middle class, etc.
The oversight was deliberate. The word "genocide" was coined by a Polish Jew, Raphael Lemkin, who was responding to Winston Churchill's 1941 lament that "we are in the presence of a crime without a name." Lemkin, a champion of human rights who lost 49 relatives in the Holocaust, gave it a name a few years later. But to get the U.N. to recognize genocide as a specific crime, he made compromises.
Under pressure from the Soviets, Lemkin supported excluding efforts to murder "political" groups from the U.N. resolution on genocide adopted in 1948. Under the more narrow definition that was approved, it's genocide to try to wipe out Roma (formerly known as Gypsies), but it's not necessarily genocide to liquidate, say, people without permanent addresses. You can't slaughter "Catholics", but you can wipe out "religious people" and dodge the genocide charge.
That type of absurdity is what Gerard Alexander, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, decries as "Enlightenment bias." Reviewing Samantha Power's moving 2003 book, "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" for the Hedgehog Review, Alexander observed that this bias leaves the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century -- self-described Marxist-Leninists -- somewhat off the hook.
In Power's book, surely the most influential writing on genocide in a generation, she scolds the U.S. -- often justly -- for not doing more to stop systematized slaughter. But by focusing so narrowly on the U.N.-style definition of genocide, she implicitly upholds a moral hierarchy of evil, which in effect renders mass murder a second-tier crime if it is done in the name of social progress, modernization or other Enlightenment ideals.
This can lead to a dangerous way of thinking in which people who are perceived to be standing in the way of progress -- middle-class farmers opposed to collectivization, aristocrats, reactionaries -- can be more forgivably slaughtered than ethnic groups because they're allegedly part of the problem, not the solution. After all, you've got to break some eggs to make an omelet.
In general, the Soviets and the Red Chinese elude the genocide charge -- and hence the status of ultimate villains -- despite having murdered scores of millions of people in the 20th century, in large part because their victims stood in the way of progress. Kulaks, or independent farmers, opposed Stalin's plan for collectivization, and so they were murdered for that "greater good." Yet Mao Tse-tung and Stalin aren't widely regarded as being as evil as Adolf Hitler because they were "modernizers." Just look how the Russians have no problem copping to the charge of mass murder but recoil at the suggestion that it was racially motivated.
It's a wrongheaded distinction. Murder is murder, whether the motive stems from bigotry or the pursuit of allegedly enlightened social planning. And that's usually a false distinction anyway. Racial genocide is often rationalized as a form of progress by those responsible. Under the Holodomor, Ukrainian culture was systematically erased by the Russian Soviets, who saw it as inferior or expendable. No doubt the Sudanese janjaweed in Darfur and the Chinese People's Liberation Army in Tibet believe that they are "modernizers" too.
Or consider the ultimate racially motivated genocide, the Holocaust. Götz Aly and Susanne Heim demonstrate in their brilliant book, "Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction," that the Final Solution, particularly in Lemkin's own Poland, was perceived by the social engineers and young economists overseeing it as a "modernizing project that would transform society."
In Germany, the effort to crush Jewry was intertwined with the effort to nationalize the economy and eliminate small and independent businesses. For German social engineers, the Jews were convenient guinea pigs for their economic experiments. The first test cases, of course, were not the Jews but the mentally ill, who were classified as an economic liability in Germany's 1936 Four-Year Plan of economic modernization.
Of course, the climate of anti-Semitism made the Holocaust possible, but so did Enlightenment bias, which holds that almost anything can be justified in the name of progress.
I doubt such distinctions would have been of much comfort to Lemkin's 49 relatives.
Jonah Goldberg
"Los Angeles Times"
April 8, 2008
Donski, baik badyti akis!
O jūs pats ar skaitėte straipsnį? Ar supratote? O gal viso labo aprioriškai plojate jam katučių? Nes tik aklas gali nematyti, kiek ten ciniškos demagogijos, vietomis virstančios paprasčiausiu nusišnekėjimu...
puikus straipsnis! teisingas ir gana issamus. gaila, kad dauguma "komentatoriu" net neskaite "komentuoja". yra ir tokiu kurie gal ir perskaite, bet mano , kad suprato... vargu ar su tokiais verta diskutuoti.
pagarba profesoriui.
pagarba profesoriui.
VIETOJ KONCENTRACIJOS STOVYKLOS - GELEŽINIS KRYŽIUS
Melitta Schenk von Stauffenberg - žydų kilmės liuftwaffės, apdovanota geležiniu kryžiumi. Juk ir Hitleris žinojo, kam teikia šį aukšta nacių pasižymėjimo ženkla. Gal šį pilotė nežinojo apie savo tautiečius koncentracijos stovyklas? Visi viska žinojo bet.. Vadinasi, galima buvo pereit i priešo pusę. Ka šneka ponas donskis? Meluoja ponas donskis. Vienos tautos tragedija yra iškeliama virš kitų. Karo metai buvo išžudyta apie 6 milijonus žydų. Tai tautos tragedija. Tačiau dar iki karo 1930 1933 m sovietų sajungoje badu buvo numarinta apie 8 milijonus ukrainiečių. Kas tai? Ne, tai, anot donskio, ne genocidas, tai... na badas ir tiek. Bet badą organizavo NKVD, kurioje labai jau didelis procentas pareigūnų buvo žydai. Labai didelis. Bet toks a.a dušanskis ramiausiai baigė dienas Izraelyje kaip nusipelnęs veikėjas. Ir kuom jis nusipelnė? Nagi žudė... Bet ne žydus... tuomet, anot donskio jis palieka nekaltas... Tiesiog juokinga
Melitta Schenk von Stauffenberg - žydų kilmės liuftwaffės, apdovanota geležiniu kryžiumi. Juk ir Hitleris žinojo, kam teikia šį aukšta nacių pasižymėjimo ženkla. Gal šį pilotė nežinojo apie savo tautiečius koncentracijos stovyklas? Visi viska žinojo bet.. Vadinasi, galima buvo pereit i priešo pusę. Ka šneka ponas donskis? Meluoja ponas donskis. Vienos tautos tragedija yra iškeliama virš kitų. Karo metai buvo išžudyta apie 6 milijonus žydų. Tai tautos tragedija. Tačiau dar iki karo 1930 1933 m sovietų sajungoje badu buvo numarinta apie 8 milijonus ukrainiečių. Kas tai? Ne, tai, anot donskio, ne genocidas, tai... na badas ir tiek. Bet badą organizavo NKVD, kurioje labai jau didelis procentas pareigūnų buvo žydai. Labai didelis. Bet toks a.a dušanskis ramiausiai baigė dienas Izraelyje kaip nusipelnęs veikėjas. Ir kuom jis nusipelnė? Nagi žudė... Bet ne žydus... tuomet, anot donskio jis palieka nekaltas... Tiesiog juokinga
Darosi panašu, kad Leonidas Donskis yra sionistas-komunistas...
Jis "nenusivairavo"....
nereikia neapkesti kazko del to ka jis or ji daro, geriau stengtis suprasti.....
Donskis tarnauja zydu ektremizmui- sionizmui. SNO norejo uzdrausti sionizma kaip nusilalstama veikla, bet del JAV veto tai neivyko.
Man atrodo, del sionizmo dar gali zmonija kenteti. Zydu ektremistams is tikruju nera svarbu, jie nesirupina del paprastu zydu....Jie turi "savo planus, tikslus".
Donskis arba nesupranta ka jis daro, arba- kas yra blogiau- daryti samoningai.
O tai reiskia netureti paprasciausios zmoniskos sazines....
Kaip opozicija jam, galiu pamineti: Noam Chomsky arba Norman Finkelstein- zmones kurie protauja ir reiskia mintis apie pasauli ir kas jame dedasi su logika ir sazine......
nereikia neapkesti kazko del to ka jis or ji daro, geriau stengtis suprasti.....
Donskis tarnauja zydu ektremizmui- sionizmui. SNO norejo uzdrausti sionizma kaip nusilalstama veikla, bet del JAV veto tai neivyko.
Man atrodo, del sionizmo dar gali zmonija kenteti. Zydu ektremistams is tikruju nera svarbu, jie nesirupina del paprastu zydu....Jie turi "savo planus, tikslus".
Donskis arba nesupranta ka jis daro, arba- kas yra blogiau- daryti samoningai.
O tai reiskia netureti paprasciausios zmoniskos sazines....
Kaip opozicija jam, galiu pamineti: Noam Chomsky arba Norman Finkelstein- zmones kurie protauja ir reiskia mintis apie pasauli ir kas jame dedasi su logika ir sazine......
REKLAMA
REKLAMA
Sąvokų infliacija ir diskusijų kriminalizacija