In case you’ve forgotten the context of this internet argument, the original commenter implied the world was seeing unprecedented wars launched solely to kill as many people as possible.
So if they could point to a war in the last two decades that killed, idk, five million people solely to kill five million people, like the Second Congo War, that’d be a start, but it still wouldn’t be at all comparable to the ethnic cleansings of the past.
I don’t think there’s ever been a war solely to kill people. There are always other factors even when there’s a genocide going on. So if that is your criterion, the number is zero.
Ok? So 10% of total casualties is “pretty low?” 100,000 people is “pretty low” to you?
Compared to the atrocities of the fairly recent past? The Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, the Eastern Front, even Manifest Destiny?
Absolutely. Even assuming the worst, because unlike then mass extermination wasn’t the point, which is what they claimed it was.
I didn’t realize it was a contest. What is the minimum number of people to not count as “pretty low?”
In case you’ve forgotten the context of this internet argument, the original commenter implied the world was seeing unprecedented wars launched solely to kill as many people as possible.
So if they could point to a war in the last two decades that killed, idk, five million people solely to kill five million people, like the Second Congo War, that’d be a start, but it still wouldn’t be at all comparable to the ethnic cleansings of the past.
I don’t think there’s ever been a war solely to kill people. There are always other factors even when there’s a genocide going on. So if that is your criterion, the number is zero.
Fair enough, how about wars in the past thirty years where at least a secondary goal is genocide of some sort or another?
Then you run into a definition of genocide. A lot of people would consider what Israel is doing right now to be genocide.