This sounds like more of a "I lost the election fairly so I am going to take it by force" kind of revolution to me.

 

I mean, if stablizing the nation while securing your financial future is an offense worthy of revolution, every American needs to grab their shotgun and head to the US Capitol building.

 

The protestors seem to be acting far worse than the "despotic government" and the opposition leader is supporting the mob violence.

 

The OSCE said that the media biased Bakiyev so thoroughly before the last election that the elections "did not allow voters to make an informed choice" and simoultaneously that the election was "marred by many problems and irregularities" For OSCE, those are very serious terms in saying the elections were undemocratic.

 

no revolution is peaceful, we just need to wait and see how policy is conducted, and if the country actually becomes democratic before we judge the revolutionists in my opinion

That is not revolution worthy, in my area, I think for every 1 or 2 John McCain commercials there were at least 8 or 9 Obama commercials. Then for our gubernatorial election there were soooo many John Corzine commercials in favor of him and defaming Christie, and even Obama made a few in state appearances, he still lost. Bias media is no excuse because media is a private enterprise anyway, however unfair Bakiyev's advantage may have been, it was still legal therefore you can't just overthrow your government in a bloody coup, because the point of a successful democratic government is the rotation of power from group to group is peaceful.

 

wanting democracy is not worthy of revolution? excuse me, but the ignorance in assuming media in a typical third world, autocratic state is identical to american media is mindboggeling to me.

 

American media is similar in that it too will try and tell you what it wants you to believe. Here it just depends on the station.

This sounds like more of a "I lost the election fairly so I am going to take it by force" kind of revolution to me.

 

I mean, if stablizing the nation while securing your financial future is an offense worthy of revolution, every American needs to grab their shotgun and head to the US Capitol building.

 

The protestors seem to be acting far worse than the "despotic government" and the opposition leader is supporting the mob violence.

 

The OSCE said that the media biased Bakiyev so thoroughly before the last election that the elections "did not allow voters to make an informed choice" and simoultaneously that the election was "marred by many problems and irregularities" For OSCE, those are very serious terms in saying the elections were undemocratic.

 

no revolution is peaceful, we just need to wait and see how policy is conducted, and if the country actually becomes democratic before we judge the revolutionists in my opinion

That is not revolution worthy, in my area, I think for every 1 or 2 John McCain commercials there were at least 8 or 9 Obama commercials. Then for our gubernatorial election there were soooo many John Corzine commercials in favor of him and defaming Christie, and even Obama made a few in state appearances, he still lost. Bias media is no excuse because media is a private enterprise anyway, however unfair Bakiyev's advantage may have been, it was still legal therefore you can't just overthrow your government in a bloody coup, because the point of a successful democratic government is the rotation of power from group to group is peaceful.

 

wanting democracy is not worthy of revolution? excuse me, but the ignorance in assuming media in a typical third world, autocratic state is identical to american media is mindboggeling to me.

 

American media is similar in that it too will try and tell you what it wants you to believe. Here it just depends on the station.

 

We're talking about degrees though: a country with media owned directly by the president. laws and persecution for negative reports about the president, squeezing opposition out of all media outlets, etc.

 

you over-estimate the wrongdoings in america, or underestimate the severity of the situation in the third world when you compare their forms of media quantitatively, not just qualitatively. To me, that is by definition taking freedom of press and expression 100% for granted. It should be a given, but is not.

 

Another pic of Mr. Badass

 

I'm still a bit puzzled as to why the Kyrgyz riot police brought anti-tank weapons with them...

^^^

Make this man a meme.

This sounds like more of a "I lost the election fairly so I am going to take it by force" kind of revolution to me.

 

I mean, if stablizing the nation while securing your financial future is an offense worthy of revolution, every American needs to grab their shotgun and head to the US Capitol building.

 

The protestors seem to be acting far worse than the "despotic government" and the opposition leader is supporting the mob violence.

 

The OSCE said that the media biased Bakiyev so thoroughly before the last election that the elections "did not allow voters to make an informed choice" and simoultaneously that the election was "marred by many problems and irregularities" For OSCE, those are very serious terms in saying the elections were undemocratic.

 

no revolution is peaceful, we just need to wait and see how policy is conducted, and if the country actually becomes democratic before we judge the revolutionists in my opinion

That is not revolution worthy, in my area, I think for every 1 or 2 John McCain commercials there were at least 8 or 9 Obama commercials. Then for our gubernatorial election there were soooo many John Corzine commercials in favor of him and defaming Christie, and even Obama made a few in state appearances, he still lost. Bias media is no excuse because media is a private enterprise anyway, however unfair Bakiyev's advantage may have been, it was still legal therefore you can't just overthrow your government in a bloody coup, because the point of a successful democratic government is the rotation of power from group to group is peaceful.

 

wanting democracy is not worthy of revolution? excuse me, but the ignorance in assuming media in a typical third world, autocratic state is identical to american media is mindboggeling to me.

 

I also think you also missed the more major concern, which is that the election was "marred by problems and irregularities" irregularities in elections are synonymous with electoral fraud, it's just the politically correct term. When OSCE calls an election "undemocratic" you know there is no real democracy in the country, the UN does not play around with human rights.

I agreed with most of what you said but as for the last part about the UN, maybe you should watch Hotel Rwanda. But on subject, great for the Kyrgyz people if they want democracy, and I hope it works out for them. but the article kind of goes to demonstrate something i dislike about media, they don't say WHY they are protesting, they just shamelessly go for views/readings by posting pictures of bloody and dead people, but when you actually want to know why I can't help but picture and editor going "Wait, what? They actually CARE and WANT TO KNOW MORE?! That isn't supposed to happen they are just supposed to want to see burning cars and angry faces!"

I agreed with most of what you said but as for the last part about the UN, maybe you should watch Hotel Rwanda. But on subject, great for the Kyrgyz people if they want democracy, and I hope it works out for them. but the article kind of goes to demonstrate something i dislike about media, they don't say WHY they are protesting, they just shamelessly go for views/readings by posting pictures of bloody and dead people, but when you actually want to know why I can't help but picture and editor going "Wait, what? They actually CARE and WANT TO KNOW MORE?! That isn't supposed to happen they are just supposed to want to see burning cars and angry faces!"

 

Yes, Hotel Rwanda was a good movie indeed!

 

However, The united nations mandate forbids intervention in "the internal politics" of any country (civil war included) unless the crime of genocide is being committed. Therefore, the UN itself has to wait before genocide is actually taking place before they can act without the agreement of the soverign nation they are making unsoverign in some respect.

 

Media i've seen has covered "why" very throughly. Sensationalist "entertainment media" for the loose :S

 

Another pic of Mr. Badass

 

I'm still a bit puzzled as to why the Kyrgyz riot police brought anti-tank weapons with them...

 

 

Who is that?

I agreed with most of what you said but as for the last part about the UN, maybe you should watch Hotel Rwanda. But on subject, great for the Kyrgyz people if they want democracy, and I hope it works out for them. but the article kind of goes to demonstrate something i dislike about media, they don't say WHY they are protesting, they just shamelessly go for views/readings by posting pictures of bloody and dead people, but when you actually want to know why I can't help but picture and editor going "Wait, what? They actually CARE and WANT TO KNOW MORE?! That isn't supposed to happen they are just supposed to want to see burning cars and angry faces!"

 

Yes, Hotel Rwanda was a good movie indeed!

 

However, The united nations mandate forbids intervention in "the internal politics" of any country (civil war included) unless the crime of genocide is being committed. Therefore, the UN itself has to wait before genocide is actually taking place before they can act without the agreement of the soverign nation they are making unsoverign in some respect.

 

Media i've seen has covered "why" very throughly. Sensationalist "entertainment media" for the loose :S

How do they determine when it is officially Genocide? Not trying to stump you with this I'm honestly curious.

 

Also could someone please enlighten me all I've been able you find out is they want to be more democratic. Was there a particular event that sparked these riots?

I agreed with most of what you said but as for the last part about the UN, maybe you should watch Hotel Rwanda. But on subject, great for the Kyrgyz people if they want democracy, and I hope it works out for them. but the article kind of goes to demonstrate something i dislike about media, they don't say WHY they are protesting, they just shamelessly go for views/readings by posting pictures of bloody and dead people, but when you actually want to know why I can't help but picture and editor going "Wait, what? They actually CARE and WANT TO KNOW MORE?! That isn't supposed to happen they are just supposed to want to see burning cars and angry faces!"

 

Yes, Hotel Rwanda was a good movie indeed!

 

However, The united nations mandate forbids intervention in "the internal politics" of any country (civil war included) unless the crime of genocide is being committed. Therefore, the UN itself has to wait before genocide is actually taking place before they can act without the agreement of the soverign nation they are making unsoverign in some respect.

 

Media i've seen has covered "why" very throughly. Sensationalist "entertainment media" for the loose :S

How do they determine when it is officially Genocide? Not trying to stump you with this I'm honestly curious.

 

Also could someone please enlighten me all I've been able you find out is they want to be more democratic. Was there a particular event that sparked these riots?

I believe what sparked the riots was the declaration of the unfairness of the election and electricity prices were raised to 200%.

 

As for your inquiry into what constitutes a genocide, the UN defines it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” but the specific limitations and boundaries of what a genocide is is debated, as is voiced by this article (simply called debate continues over what constitutes genocide): http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/02/05/debate-continues-over-what-constitutes-genocide/3925/

 

[hide=Article about debate on what constitutes genocide] The word genocide was coined in the wake of the Holocaust.

 

Since then, the term has been used in varying contexts to describe modern conflicts, from Rwanda to Darfur. But the term itself has become a source of conflict, as many look to whether or not governments and leaders recognize and punish genocide.

 

The United Nations defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” and a convention criminalizing genocide became law in 1951.

 

Some people have been prosecuted and found guilty of genocide, including Rwandan politician Jean-Paul Akayesu and Serbian General Radislav Krstic.

 

However, while the U.S. has pointed to genocide in Darfur, the United Nations has refrained from using that term to describe the killings in Sudan.

 

The “Killing Denouement” blog discusses the historical use of the term and modern debates surrounding its usage:

 

Is Gaza a genocide; is Darfur a genocide? Where do you draw the lines between ‘land conflict’, ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide’, and what are the political value(s) of doing so? And how does something get designated as genocide anyway - is it, legally, only when the ICC at the Hague says so?

 

[...]The Rwandan genocide is popularly characterised as one of the most shocking massacres of a century already stained by violent bloodshed. Much of its associated visceral horror comes from the situation of neighbours turning against each other. Not unlike its historical cousin of the Nazi Holocaust, it too was structured around several poles of binary opposition. Citizen and subject; native and settler. Hutu and Tutsi; Nazi and Jew. Both of these atrocities have seeped their way into the collective Western consciousness, and have come to function as embedded points of reference for future conflicts.

 

The “Presidential Blog” writes about the debate surrounding the Gaza war and its casualties:

 

I see how the name-calling and the evocations of other historical horrors take us all further away from understanding, further away from any hope of resolution on a human scale. Comparisons to “genocide” or “apartheid” simply raise the rhetorical stakes; they may help speakers or writers score points (in their own minds and the minds of the like-minded) but they do nothing to advance shared understanding.

 

On the contrary.

 

Mahmood Mamdani of “Pambazuka News” points to similarities between violence in Darfur and the war in Iraq, exploring how the conflicts are named differently:

 

The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable. The estimate of the number of civilians killed over the past three years is roughly similar. The killers are mostly paramilitaries, closely linked to the official military, which is said to be their main source of arms. The victims too are by and large identified as members of groups, rather than targeted as individuals. But the violence in the two places is named differently. In Iraq, it is said to be a cycle of insurgency and counter-insurgency; in Darfur, it is called genocide. Why the difference? Who does the naming? Who is being named? What difference does it make?

 

Flickr user “Bullneck” posts an image of a protester with a sign declaring genocide, and argues that the word is misused:

 

Here’s an idea: Why don’t we all put the term ‘genocide’ (and ‘Holocaust,’ too) on a hiatus from placards and instead use words with more meaning, rationality, and thought? The only situation which calls for the use of such terms would be something akin to Rwanda in the ’90s. Everything else is self-righteous hyperbole which cheapens the word’s meaning.

 

Blogger “Stacey Perlman” argues that governments use alternate terms to avoid responsibilities:

 

The genocide in Darfur has gone on since 2003 and has not gained the attention it deserves. Other genocides include Rwanda in 1994 and the Cambodian Killing Fields in 1975. Not to mention the death of 11 million people, 6 million of them Jews, in the Holocaust during WWII.

 

Perhaps lesser known is the first genocide of the 20th century. No, it wasn’t the Jews in WWII, it was the Armenians in 1915 during WWI. It is estimated that one and a half million people died between 1915 and 1923. There is still controversy surrounding the mass murder of these people as the Turkish government has continually denied it ever happened.

 

In Kenya, the recent election controversy was the straw that broke the camel’s back after decades of tension from grudges over land. Using a term like “ethnic cleansing” is an easy way to avoid providing aid. [...] Until the situation is deemed “genocide” no legal action needs to be taken, which is disturbing. Ethnic cleansing is not any less minor of a situation than a declared genocide and efforts should be made to combat it.

 

The “BlogCritics” blog writes that Western governments only deem mass killing genocidal when economic interests are involved:

 

After the horrors of World War II, the world said “never again” to horrific mass killings. But, due to the Cold War tensions, idealistic ideas such as this one were abandoned in favor of realist politics and fighting for self-interests. “Never again” does not mean “we will do everything to stop genocides from happening anywhere in the world.” The Western world in particular considers stopping genocides only in countries where they have economic or other interests.

 

That is why in 1994 the American government did not want to use the term “genocide” to describe the fastest genocide in recorded human history that took over 800,000 lives in Rwanda in only 100 days. [...] Calling the mass slaughter “genocide” would obligate the US and other governments, signatories of the Resolution 260A(III), to intervene and stop it. But the US and other Western countries did nothing because they had no interests in the small, overpopulated, and poor African country. That a whole ethnic group was being exterminated in front of the whole world was not enough.

 

Blogger “Erica Thurman” argues that omitting gender from the definition of genocide allows violence against women:

 

Discourse of human security as it relates to women appears to avoid the “G” word—genocide. This is perhaps because the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Convention) fails to identify systematic sexual based violence as an act of genocide. Various threats to human security are gender specific. Rape, forced impregnation, maternal mortality rates and sexual slavery are components of human insecurity which have to be viewed through a gendered lens to recognize “who is affected and how, and what specific forms of protection or assistance are needed by whom.” [...]

 

A finding of systematic rape as genocide would serve two purposes. The first would allow the violence against African women to be classified as genocide, thereby compelling the international community to act to prevent future occurrences of this heinous crime. Secondly, the finding of rape as genocide would introduce the idea of sexually specific crimes in the discourse of genocide which could subsequently compel an amendment to the Convention establishing women as a protected class against genocide.[/hide]

I believe what sparked the riots was the declaration of the unfairness of the election and electricity prices were raised to 200%.

 

As for your inquiry into what constitutes a genocide, the UN defines it as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group but the specific limitations and boundaries of what a genocide is is debated, as is voiced by this article (simply called debate continues over what constitutes genocide): http://worldfocus.or...-genocide/3925/

 

Well isn't that a handy little loophole.

 

Another pic of Mr. Badass

 

I'm still a bit puzzled as to why the Kyrgyz riot police brought anti-tank weapons with them...

 

 

Who is that?

Idk, some crazy [bleep]er that stole a RPG-22 and riot shield from a cop.

 

As seen here:

Yay big picture.

I believe what sparked the riots was the declaration of the unfairness of the election and electricity prices were raised to 200%.

 

As for your inquiry into what constitutes a genocide, the UN defines it as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” but the specific limitations and boundaries of what a genocide is is debated, as is voiced by this article (simply called debate continues over what constitutes genocide): http://worldfocus.or...-genocide/3925/

 

Well isn't that a handy little loophole.

It's the stupidest loophole I've ever heard of that works, I find ethnic cleansing (which would be to remove "impurities") and acts intent on exterminating a group the same thing. It isn't even arguable.

I believe what sparked the riots was the declaration of the unfairness of the election and electricity prices were raised to 200%.

 

As for your inquiry into what constitutes a genocide, the UN defines it as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group but the specific limitations and boundaries of what a genocide is is debated, as is voiced by this article (simply called debate continues over what constitutes genocide): http://worldfocus.or...-genocide/3925/

 

Well isn't that a handy little loophole.

It's the stupidest loophole I've ever heard of that works, I find ethnic cleansing (which would be to remove "impurities") and acts intent on exterminating a group the same thing. It isn't even arguable.

Its actually a pretty huge loophole because you can argue till the world ends about whether or not it is ethnic cleansing. I respect people who want to make the world a better place, I really do, but the UN seems like a piss poor organization. They impose "tough sanctions" and not much else. On the subject of sanctions, I was in a Current Events class so I used to follow the news pretty closely and if I could have put money on it I would probably be filthy rich right now. The news kept saying how we were getting closer and closer to a nuclear deal with Iran, I remember these titles like "Minister of Blah says Iran is responsive to arrangements", and "Nuclear deal with Iran about to close", and just when they seemed ready to shake hands Iran was like... SYKE! They messed around for weeks and got a result that a high school student predicted from the beginning. As I understand it they are sill trying to come to some sure arrangement. But alas no one remembers this because we are so involved in the now.

 

while all this talk of ethnic cleansing and the UN is nice we really should get back on topic.... I seem to have an effect where, once I show up on a topic it quickly begins to get off track...

The United Nations is a pretty worthless organization.

 

Yeaaa