Is WSJ trying to say the term can only be used to refer to when the Nazis did it now? Isn’t THAT convenient.
“Using the word ‘genocide’ is politically inconvenient because it implies that we’re complicit in all of these ongoing genocides in Yemen and Palestine”
“Also there’s totally a genocide happening in Ukraine you guys”
Don’t forget China.
MSM already essentially memory holed that one
Apparently the genocide either
a. Already concluded silently or
b. Was total horseshit
Is it time to retire the first world?
unlimitedly so
“Is it time to retire a word that’s being used to describe something we agree with?”
The “Allies” won the war btw
I’m not a politician or anything, so maybe I’m very wrong here, but wouldn’t it just be better to retire doing genocide?
I think that’d be pretty cool, just my opinion though.
Craven little worms.
Whenever a news headline is a question, the answer is almost always no. I think they make it a question because they don’t have the evidence to make it the statement they want it to be.
