Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
After 4 days on hunger strike Maajid Nawaz secures debate about Uyghar Muslims
Options
Comments
-
MontgomeryClift wrote: »That's the important question. It all begs the question is anybody in power there actually working on behalf of the people of the UK.
Well it seems the interests of the Uyghur people take precedence over those of the British people for the Tories. I don't think you can rule out ideological fanaticism but it's hard to grant British politicians even the dignity of having an ideology.Deleted User wrote: »Personally, I suspect it's a way to huddling up to the US, since they've lost the support of the EU. It's likely some backroom deals were suggested that the UK would receive some preferential treatment, due to their actions with Huawei, and HK.
Perhaps. Either way, its not rooted in asking what is best for the British people.As for benefits, they gain a highly educated and skilled workforce
Though displacing highly educated and skilled British workers. At the very least weakening their bargaining position for wages. I can see the benefit to the HKers, and indeed to multinationals but not to the British people. It does highlight how hollow the political debate is in the UK when the Tories dream this up. I'm strongly of the belief that the Brexit vote was a revolt against the wrong target. The Tories (and Labour) have happily sold out the interests of the British people for decades. No wonder British voters felt their sovereignty had been lost but the root cause was in London, not Brussels.0 -
When push comes to shove, the UK is a regional power which seems determined to pick a fight with a superpower with absolutely no benefit to the people of the UK. It is baffling why they persist with this policy of aggravation with a country on the other side of the world.
Regardless of the rights and the wrongs of Chinese internal policies, in a real diplomatic and economic conflict with China, the UK - outside the EU security blanket - will very quickly find its not the 19th century anymore.
I get why Maajid Nawaz cares, but I'd really like to see the Tories explain how aggravating the Chinese government, violating international treaties and transferring 3 million hong kong residents to the UK helps people in the UK. If nothing else, Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught the UK that it has no business intervening in Asia. Least of all when Brexit Britain will need every bit of good will and co-operation that they can muster from potential trade partners.
So let me get this straight; it seems your worry is for the UK people because their population might increase by a maximum of 4%, yet where is your concern for the Uyghar people and every other dissident imprisoned within China that has their organs harvested, forced sterilization, imprisoned in work camps, etc..
Even the British themselves aren't concerned about the people of Hong Kong arriving. They're happy to help a close cultural, historical ally in Hong Kong, especially considering it would probably be a net benefit to them.
I'm sure many argued just how poweful Nazi Germany were too; but it still didn't stop people from all over the globe coming together to stop the murderous b*stards.
Lots of countries have 'violated international treaties' with China recently, especially the ones about extradition to Hong Kong and rightfully so.0 -
So let me get this straight; it seems your worry is for the UK people because their population might increase by a maximum of 4%, yet where is your concern for the Uyghar people and every other dissident imprisoned within China that has their organs harvested, forced sterilization, imprisoned in work camps, etc..
I didn't say I was worried. I pointed out my bafflement with the policy taken by the British government which is nominally supposed to be concerned about the British people, but clearly isnt.Even the British themselves aren't concerned about the people of Hong Kong arriving.
Citation needed.They're happy to help a close cultural, historical ally in Hong Kong, especially considering it would probably be a net benefit to them.
Citation needed.I'm sure many argued just how poweful Nazi Germany were too; but it still didn't stop people from all over the globe coming together to stop the murderous b*stards.
Godwins Law, check.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Fair play to Nawaz for raising the issue.
However, has anyone ever listened to his show on LBC?
He is very intense and I often have to turn his show off because of it. It is like he is on a mission every time and "I am the presenter, do not denigrate me" and so on.
I am probably alone thinking this. But anyway...0 -
And now they're not. The interests of the British people should take precedence over the interests of the residents of Hong Kong. But they clearly do not. Why is that?
Take precedence over? What does that mean? They are not mutually exclusive.
By helping the HongKong people they may be benefiting themselves with the braindrain it will bring, as well as the people there are on average better educated.
China made a deal with the UK that the CCP broke, which negatively affects the well-being of the people of HK. It's like giving away your dog's puppies under condition they will be well treated, when you find out they are being abused will you just shrug your shoulders and go 'oh well, nothing I can do now'.0 -
Really wonder how many HK people will move across the world to a Brexit Britain now.0
-
Spanish Eyes wrote: »Fair play to Nawaz for raising the issue.
However, has anyone ever listened to his show on LBC?
He is very intense and I often have to turn his show off because of it. It is like he is on a mission every time and "I am the presenter, do not denigrate me" and so on.
I am probably alone thinking this. But anyway...
No you are right. He does talk a bit too fast for me when he gets agitated but other times he's fine. You have to have 100% concentration listening to which I don't always have when the radio is on in the background.0 -
No you are right. He does talk a bit too fast for me when he gets agitated but other times he's fine. You have to have 100% concentration listening to which I don't always have when the radio is on in the background.
Glad it's not just me! I enjoy most of his topics but he can be very very intense at times.0 -
Advertisement
-
Take precedence over? What does that mean? They are not mutually exclusive.
By helping the HongKong people they may be benefiting themselves with the braindrain it will bring, as well as the people there are on average better educated.
How does a well educated, skilled British worker benefit from well educated, skilled Hong Kongers arriving to compete against him for well educated/skilled jobs? There is a myth that foreign workers do the low skilled jobs British workers don't want to do. Is the plan now that foreign workers will do the high skilled jobs the British want to do as well?China made a deal with the UK that the CCP broke, which negatively affects the well-being of the people of HK. It's like giving away your dog's puppies under condition they will be well treated, when you find out they are being abused will you just shrug your shoulders and go 'oh well, nothing I can do now'.
Oh, analogy time. Its more correct to say you break into someones home and steal their puppies. When the owner protests, you ignore them because you're far stronger than them. When over time they become stronger than you, you agree to give the puppies back. For the sake of your dignity and to get the puppies back without further conflict, the owner allows you some face saving measures but its clear they could take them back either way.
Time moves on. Now, on the basis you previously stole those puppies, you think you have a legitimate interest in how the rightful owner raises them?
Now, I can guess you are as unconvinced by my analogy as I am by yours. So lets cut out the analogies and just deal with the facts. They aren't British citizens, and regardless of the legalities the interests of the British people are not served by a pointless conflict with a superpower on the other side of the world.0 -
Now, I can guess you are as unconvinced by my analogy as I am by yours. So lets cut out the analogies and just deal with the facts. They aren't British citizens, and regardless of the legalities the interests of the British people are not served by a pointless conflict with a superpower on the other side of the world.
It's not a pointless conflict and it's not a conflict that only Britain has with the CCP recently. It may seem pointless in the short term, but the power the CCP hold is only increasing.
When the protestors entered the HK parliament they raised the Union Jack, that tells you all you need to know about what the people there want.0 -
suicide_circus wrote: »This is the country that's going to take over as American hegemony subsides.
Bad times ahead.
Between americanism that forces transgenderism on children and muslims taking over Europe, China seems as a great alternative my friend.0 -
Stop saying crazy things.Between americanism that forces transgenderism on children and muslims taking over Europe, China seems as a great alternative my friend.
Also why have you named yourself after the 2nd SS Panzer Division of the Waffen-SS of Nazi Germany???
Don't you think that is a little odd?
I mean do you admire them or something?0 -
ILoveYourVibes wrote: »Stop saying crazy things.
Also why have you named yourself after the 2nd SS Panzer Division of the Waffen-SS of Nazi Germany???
Don't you think that is a little odd?
I mean do you admire them or something?
Anglosphere people have a lot to learn from China. There was also a Charlemagne or Wiking divisions as searched now, doesnt mean anything.0 -
Has Dublin mayor Hazel Chu commented on this? Irish politicians are quick enough to run their mouths on Israel.0
-
Has Dublin mayor Hazel Chu commented on this? Irish politicians are quick enough to run their mouths on Israel.
Because she's of Chinese ethnicity? She's an Irish citizen and not Chinese as far as I'm aware. Do you expect Leo to roll out statements on Modi's carry on around the clock because he's of partly Indian parentage?
I know she has tweeted in favour of the Hong Kong protests in the recent past if that helps you put the jigsaw together.0 -
It's not a pointless conflict and it's not a conflict that only Britain has with the CCP recently. It may seem pointless in the short term, but the power the CCP hold is only increasing.
It's a pointless conflict because China will never give up on the HK territory, and no nation will risk military conflict over HK. And they'd never be able to guarantee independence for HK.
As for CCP power, it's going to grow regardless of what happens in HK. It'll be Taiwan that decides China's future.When the protestors entered the HK parliament they raised the Union Jack, that tells you all you need to know about what the people there want.
That they were looking for allies because they had none. Doesn't mean that they really believe the UK can do anything about the whole situation. In the end HK will be used as a bargaining chip by the Western powers, and likely a sizable portion of the HK population will suffer for that.0 -
-
Between americanism that forces transgenderism on children and muslims taking over Europe, China seems as a great alternative my friend.
Except it isn't. I get that many posters here see little difference between Chinese cultural perspectives and western cultural perspectives. However, I do see major differences in the values that people generally believe in. There is a harshness to Chinese cultural beliefs regarding the value of human life, especially when there's a choice between the value of those Chinese and those who are foreign.
A dominant China will only listen to it's own wants. Like any superpower. The difference being that the US wanted to be the shining white knight of western civilisation, with the high moral ground of being the protector against communism, and the poster child of democracy/freedom. That restrained the US from behaving in certain ways, because it was held {somewhat} accountable to other Western nations.
China isn't part of any kind of Bloc. It has no close relations with any other group, and doesn't feel the need to project an image of itself, beyond what's part of it's long-term strategy. They will expand aggressively throughout Asia, and seek to humble the powers of the world whether that's based on economies, or military.
There's also an arrogance due to their own perception of their history and the need to combat the inferiority complex that arose within the last century. They need to show that they're better than other nations. To be supreme. And part of that is destroying any group that doesn't conform to their view of the world. Their world.
I don't like what the US has become. It's thrown away it's respectability and it holds double standards very close to it's heart. It's political system is corrupt as hell, and they're a remarkably arrogant nation. It's just that as Europeans, we've traditionally benefited from their agendas.
However, China is dangerous, because it has no interest in helping anyone except itself. I can certainly understand their POV, but that doesn't change the full scope of negatives that will come from them exercising their power...0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »It's a pointless conflict because China will never give up on the HK territory, and no nation will risk military conflict over HK. And they'd never be able to guarantee independence for HK.
As for CCP power, it's going to grow regardless of what happens in HK. It'll be Taiwan that decides China's future.
That they were looking for allies because they had none. Doesn't mean that they really believe the UK can do anything about the whole situation. In the end HK will be used as a bargaining chip by the Western powers, and likely a sizable portion of the HK population will suffer for that.
I agree it would be pointless to cause a military conflict with China because of HK. Although that's not really what I'm getting at.
It's important that we start sending messages to the CCP. One such message is the UK telling all the residents of HK they are free to move to and live in the UK. Another is all the countries that have recently revoked their extradition bills with HK. Another is the US trade embargos, the UK looking to roll back on programs with Huawei and Canada's arrest of Meng Wanzhou.
Unless of course we're happy with slave labour in our supply chains, innovatiion and technology stolen and monetized by thieves, fruits that we enjoy coming from concentration camps, organs on demand for any organ tourist with enough cash. Is this the world we want to live in?
Once upon a time I'm sure many weren't happy to go to war with nazi Germany or imperialist Japan. It was surely argued what a terrible mistake that would be, what a horrendous loss of live we'd see.
It comes down to are some things objectively right and proper; morally correct? I guess you'd argue no, everything is subjective. I would argue there are some higher morale truths that has taken time for us as a civilization to learn.
Just because the Jivaroan's of the amazon annually seek out their rivals and decapitate them doesn't mean that headhunting is in anyway a subjective truth. We should objectively look at that and say that is wrong.
I guess that's me looking through a western lense again and applying my own morale standards.0 -
Because she's of Chinese ethnicity? She's an Irish citizen and not Chinese as far as I'm aware. Do you expect Leo to roll out statements on Modi's carry on around the clock because he's of partly Indian parentage?
I know she has tweeted in favour of the Hong Kong protests in the recent past if that helps you put the jigsaw together.
You’re getting very defensive. Did I strike a nerve? Maybe you feel the need to defend Chu because you see her as a weak politician unable to defend herself? You’re correct she is of Chinese ethnicity. You can change your nationality but not your ethnicity and so she will never be ethnically Irish.
But that is besides the point. Irish politicians don’t have to be Jewish to criticize Israel, which they spend a suspiciously large amount of time doing to the neglect of local issues. Chu doesn’t have to Chinese to criticize China. But the fact her lips are sealed on this issue (as a Chinese) speaks volumes.0 -
I agree it would be pointless to cause a military conflict with China because of HK. Although that's not really what I'm getting at.
It's important that we start sending messages to the CCP. One such message is the UK telling all the residents of HK they are free to move to and live in the UK. Another is all the countries that have recently revoked their extradition bills with HK. Another is the US trade embargos, the UK looking to roll back on programs with Huawei and Canada's arrest of Meng Wanzhou.
Those messages have been sent for decades. From the critical media reports, to the various independent groups throughout the US promoting China's crimes. You really think the Chinese haven't noticed the negative slant in US media/government over the last few decades? They have. It's reported in their own media, to reinforce the double standards of the West.
And I'm not naive enough to believe that the move against Huawei, or the US embargos are anything to do with HK or human rights. They're moves because the US is looking to set itself directly against China. Which is fine, but say it as it really is. The US has always used moral crusades to cover their political agendas.Unless of course we're happy with slave labour in our supply chains, innovatiion and technology stolen and monetized by thieves, fruits that we enjoy coming from concentration camps, organs on demand for any organ tourist with enough cash. Is this the world we want to live in?
Obviously, it is.... because it's only really China that's being targeted for such. Such operations are available elsewhere without serious international condemnation, and quite often, very close to US shores.Once upon a time I'm sure many weren't happy to go to war with nazi Germany or imperialist Japan. It was surely argued what a terrible mistake that would be, what a horrendous loss of live we'd see.
The difference being that China has a nuclear arsenal, a massive army, and the will to engage all it's arsenal in defense of it's aims. If you're talking about war with China, then, we're likely going to see millions die (if not hundreds of millions). Would China lose? Almost definitely yes. There's heaps of weaknesses to their society and military which could be exploited. There's also heaps of strengths considering they've been preparing for a war with the US for over 40 years.
People have forgotten what real war is like because there haven't been any major wars since WW2. China vs the US/Allies would be a nasty dirty war, and considering the lack of strategic planning by the US since Korea, it would be a badly managed affair with limited actual value, and a lot of downsides.
Vietnam was a mess. Iraq was a mess. The whole M.East is a mess due to the aftershocks of their actions and involvement. The US hasn't exactly been particularly good at war, except for the opening phases. What happens when Western troops need to enter China proper to maintain order? How would it be policed, and the rebuilding done in a way that doesn't involve massive corruption and greed?It comes down to are some things objectively right and proper; morally correct? I guess you'd argue no, everything is subjective. I would argue there are some higher morale truths that has taken time for us as a civilization to learn.
Nope. I'd argue the practicalities of our current reality. Can the lives of those being persecuted be improved? is the CCP or PRC likely to bow to international pressure? What would arise from the ashes of a defeated China? How much damage to the world, would an outraged China perform?
If this really was about higher morals, then we would be cleaning up the world, dealing with all the **** in the minor countries first. Why? Because they're far easier and would provide a working template for future operations. But... do we see any such initiatives with the needed resources allocated? Nope.
I'd argue that there is a hypocrisy to western culture when it comes to human rights. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good example of this. Still running isn't it?Just because the Jivaroan's of the amazon annually seek out their rivals and decapitate them doesn't mean that headhunting is in anyway a subjective truth. We should objectively look at that and say that is wrong.
I guess that's me looking through a western lense again and applying my own morale standards.
Yes, of course you are. Your last example with regards to the cultural habits in the Amazon show that you are. You're placing your value system above theirs. No different to the missionaries who came to Africa, or the Americas pushing their morals on to another people regardless of their own desires. Essentially, you're approving of ethnic cleansing as long as it's your cultural values that are applied.0 -
The Hongkong residents will serve the same purpose as all migrants do in this multicultural era.
Drive up demand.
Drive down wages.
Increase total GDP.
It will be of no benefit to the very most in Britain.0 -
-
I don't enjoy debating this way I don't think it's useful to other readers, but alas..
Those messages have not been sent for decades. The strategy towards China on a world stage has only recently changed. Show me trade embargos on china for the last few decades. Show me high profile Chinese being arrested.Deleted User wrote: »Those messages have been sent for decades. From the critical media reports, to the various independent groups throughout the US promoting China's crimes. You really think the Chinese haven't noticed the negative slant in US media/government over the last few decades? They have. It's reported in their own media, to reinforce the double standards of the West.And I'm not naive enough to believe that the move against Huawei, or the US embargos are anything to do with HK or human rights. They're moves because the US is looking to set itself directly against China. Which is fine, but say it as it really is. The US has always used moral crusades to cover their political agendas.
That's your opinion and your entitled to it, but would you prefer to be tried in a US court or a Chinese court?Obviously, it is.... because it's only really China that's being targeted for such. Such operations are available elsewhere without serious international condemnation, and quite often, very close to US shores.
Guantanamo bay? Would you prefer to be held in Guantanamo bay or a Chinese prison?The difference being that China has a nuclear arsenal, a massive army, and the will to engage all it's arsenal in defense of it's aims. If you're talking about war with China, then, we're likely going to see millions die (if not hundreds of millions). Would China lose? Almost definitely yes. There's heaps of weaknesses to their society and military which could be exploited. There's also heaps of strengths considering they've been preparing for a war with the US for over 40 years.
That's clearly a massive concern. How many billions will die of the next few centuries if the CCP eventually become all powerful though. Concentration camps never end. Their scope only increases.People have forgotten what real war is like because there haven't been any major wars since WW2. China vs the US/Allies would be a nasty dirty war, and considering the lack of strategic planning by the US since Korea, it would be a badly managed affair with limited actual value, and a lot of downsides.
For sure, as the war against Germany risked our very existence.Vietnam was a mess. Iraq was a mess. The whole M.East is a mess due to the aftershocks of their actions and involvement. The US hasn't exactly been particularly good at war, except for the opening phases. What happens when Western troops need to enter China proper to maintain order? How would it be policed, and the rebuilding done in a way that doesn't involve massive corruption and greed?
They were a mess and were not existential threats, as much as they tried to fool us that they were.
There have been several movements in China already crushed as dissenters by the CCP. Perhaps one or several of these movements would gain traction and achieve power.Nope. I'd argue the practicalities of our current reality. Can the lives of those being persecuted be improved? is the CCP or PRC likely to bow to international pressure? What would arise from the ashes of a defeated China? How much damage to the world, would an outraged China perform?
Yeah I'd say if it hurts CCP bottom line they will eventually bow to the pressure. I believe it's much more a question of economics with them.If this really was about higher morals, then we would be cleaning up the world, dealing with all the **** in the minor countries first. Why? Because they're far easier and would provide a working template for future operations. But... do we see any such initiatives with the needed resources allocated? Nope.
Are you happy wearing a mask made by slaves?
The numbers going through guantamo were miniscule compared to that of the Chinese, and yes I argued against that too. It is still open but with just a few dozen peope. At least they are open and honest about it. Secrets can't be hidden away like under the CCP.I'd argue that there is a hypocrisy to western culture when it comes to human rights. Guantanamo Bay is a pretty good example of this. Still running isn't it?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/guantanamo/article127473314.htmlDuring Obama's administration, the number of inmates was reduced from about 245 to 41Yes, of course you are. Your last example with regards to the cultural habits in the Amazon show that you are. You're placing your value system above theirs. No different to the missionaries who came to Africa, or the Americas pushing their morals on to another people regardless of their own desires. Essentially, you're approving of ethnic cleansing as long as it's your cultural values that are applied.
Was the world applying their value system on the Nazis? Should they have left them alone in their own subjective truth. Do you think it was a mistake that we went to war with them? It just seems by your logic we shouldn't have. We were applying our own value system to the Nazis when they were just trying to get along.0 -
Bizarre comment. She's not obligated to make any kind of comment on it, where her parents are from has no relevance whatsoever.
I'm part Chinese and I feel an onus to speak up about these things.
I guess it's like if other fans of a sports team you supported did something you didn't agree with; you'd feel the need to disassociate and condemn it, no?0 -
I'm part Chinese and I feel an onus to speak up about these things.
I guess it's like if other fans of a sports team you supported did something you didn't agree with; you'd feel the need to disassociate and condemn it, no?
I may or may not publicly condemn it, but I wouldn't necessarily see it as "needed" and would resent the assertion than I'm somehow in favour of it if I don't.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I don't enjoy debating this way I don't think it's useful to other readers, but alas..
Debating what way? Multi-quotes? I don't see anything wrong with the discussion we're having. As long as we're respecting each other, I'm good with it.Those messages have not been sent for decades. The strategy towards China on a world stage has only recently changed. Show me trade embargos on china for the last few decades. Show me high profile Chinese being arrested.
Shifting goalposts? Before we were talking about criticism and condemnation... now you're asking about arrests. Different scenarios entirely.That's your opinion and your entitled to it, but would you prefer to be tried in a US court or a Chinese court?
US, obviously. Although, I'd actually prefer any European court to a US court..
Although I do find the question to be a strange follow on, from what I posted originally.Guantanamo bay? Would you prefer to be held in Guantanamo bay or a Chinese prison?
I place them on an equal footing TBH. In some ways, GB is worse because US terrorism laws remove any right to counsel, whereas there are still "some" diplomatic avenues with China.
But you're missing the point, or dodging it. GB shows the hypocrisy of the US about human rights when they're willing to suspend it when it's inconvenient...That's clearly a massive concern. How many billions will die of the next few centuries if the CCP eventually become all powerful though. Concentration camps never end. Their scope only increases.
There's a difference between a death camp and a concentration camp. China, for the most part, has been using re-education camps so the majority aren't being killed. And the populations involved are relatively low, so.. billions? Nah. That's being overly dramatic.
I'm not defending their use of ethnic cleansing, the sterilization initiatives, or their execution of "terrorists", but you're trying to justify a war which would result in massive loss of life... that's a stretch in my eyes.For sure, as the war against Germany risked our very existence.
Rubbish. Germany wasn't seeking to destroy humanity. The Nazi's identified those "they" found undesirable, and sought to kill them. The majority of the European population of the time wouldn't have fallen into those categories, and in many instances, German occupation didn't involve killing everyone.
A war with China would involve massive conventional forces, greater than WW2 brought to bear. And it would involve Nuclear weapons should the CCP face defeat... that blows any comparison with WW2.They were a mess and were not existential threats, as much as they tried to fool us that they were.
There have been several movements in China already crushed as dissenters by the CCP. Perhaps one or several of these movements would gain traction and achieve power.
It's possible, but why believe they would be any more favorable towards Western desires? They're still Chinese, have been conditioned for 70 years, and would have seen their country ravaged by Western military forces. That's without considering that anyone with influence in China would already proven themselves to be corrupt and dishonest...Yeah I'd say if it hurts CCP bottom line they will eventually bow to the pressure. I believe it's much more a question of economics with them.
You deflected. My questions have relevance. I've answered your points directly, without seeking any deflections... show me the respect to do the same.Are you happy wearing a mask made by slaves?
Another deflection. And more unnecessary drama. Address my points, please.The numbers going through guantamo were miniscule compared to that of the Chinese, and yes I argued against that too. It is still open but with just a few dozen peope. At least they are open and honest about it. Secrets can't be hidden away like under the CCP.
Then the CCP aren't doing such a good job considering you've pointed out a wide range of their crimes... and you're missing the point. The US supposedly represents a higher moral position, yes?Was the world applying their value system on the Nazis? Should they have left them alone in their own subjective truth. Do you think it was a mistake that we went to war with them? It just seems by your logic we shouldn't have. We were applying our own value system to the Nazis when they were just trying to get along.
The allies got involved in WW2 for reasons completely unrelated with Germany's attitude to the Jews, or any other group. France ignored it's defense pact with Czechoslovakia, and did nothing to help Poland. The British only intervened with the invasion of Poland. The US only intervened with the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbour, and the German DOW. In each case, of the allies fighting Germany, it was a result of a military/strategic concern. You're buying into the propaganda. They weren't fighting the Nazi's because they were Nazi's.
And you are deflecting once more. What is ethnic cleansing? Consider your first example about the Amazon.
Edit: Just to add, "we" didn't go to war with them. Ireland remained relatively neutral.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement