After what happened in 1972 in Germany and now around Toulouse, I'm inclined to say yes!

GOG.com

No, the Holocaust was a different matter entirely, it was the systematic attempted genocide of a particular sector of humanity.

What's going on in the middle east is simply WAR.

Edited.. spolling.

wait, what?

At the risk of kicking up a shitstorm, one could argue that Israel continues the holocaust. I have no problem with Judaism as a religion, but Israel as a nation is close to North Korea in terms of unacceptable provocation and absurd, unjustifiable foreign policy based on religious fanaticism rather than political diplomacy.

Yes, what this guy did in France is absolutely horrific. What he was mainly angry about (the countless killings of Palestinians by Israel) is also horrific. So much horrificness I don't even know where to start.

Also with regards to your actual question: No. Far more Muslims are being killed by Israel at the moment than Jews being killed by Muslims.

I like how the Internet gives people the ability to say what they like. After all, it's not like you haev anything Toulouse.

Sure, but going to a jewish school and killing children and teachers simply because they are jews is not war, and it is not terror, it is genocide. Well, that's another kind of genocide that they do. But of course I didn't forget the Golan heights.

Can someone please help me understand the purpose and point of this thread?

Because I'm trying to find that very hard and the more I try, the more my head hurts

It's not Genocide, check a dictionary ;)

And as I said, if you want to call it a holocaust, logically you have to apply the same term to the slaughter of Palestinians by Israel.

My dictionary says killing members of a religious group in the intention of destroying that group fully or partially is genocide.

We don't talk about normal Islam members here, we are talking about the extremists.

Islam member is not equal to Islamist.

Personally I'd define war as a situation where both sides has the ability to fight back, and Genocide, what we understand the WW2 holocaust to have been, as the systematic murder of people without the power/resources to fight back, or at least the inability to fight back effectively.

But other's may have a different definition.

Genocide does not need any murder. Don't forget one of the first judgments for genocide was not only for mass murder but also separately for systematic rape because it breaks the living will of the victims.

Prosecutor v. Akayesu
Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda, 2nd September 1998

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

Sorry, that was a Lille bit disappointing as puns go. I'm just Lyon on the bed, thinking of other bad French town puns. Still, I hope they've found the man who's murdered those kids from the Jewish school. I hope they Arras him.

I go Tulle great lengths in order Tours make sure my puns are good. Don't Rouen them.

I'll take your word for it, personally I've never come across a definition of Genocide that wasn't wholesale murder.

EDIT........ Actually having done a quick search for the word.. I'm going to stick to the definition I outlined above.

That seems to be the overwhelming consensus among sites that give a definition.. and there is even a site dealing with the definition stating a current willingness by some parties to try to rewrite the definition to be broader, and I don't agree with changing the definition of words to suit a particular political climate.. so no, I'm sticking with gencide defined as the systematic murder/ physical destruction of a particular section of humanity.

Nice.

Get it? Nice.