Syrian Crisis Just Another Genocide On a Long List Under Democratic Presidents

What’s going in Syria and Iraq is not just a humanitarian crisis, it is genocide.

While politicians from both sides of the aisle quibble over what term to label the Barbarians that are slaughtering innocents, we are missing the big picture of what is taking place. ISIS has conquered territory and is exterminating any ethnic group or religion that does not conform to their beliefs.

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide, as found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide is “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

For Liberals, definitions are flexible. Liberals want to define terms in accordance with their narratives. And in the case of genocide, Liberals all but condone it.

There is good reason for President Obama and his Liberal allies in Congress, mainstream media and academia to not call the refugee crisis a genocide. Most of the world’s genocides in the 20th century happened during the terms of Democratic presidents.

The most recent mass genocide occurred in Rwanda in 1994 under democratic President Bill Clinton. Over 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered. Most were hacked to death with machetes. During democratic President Jimmy Carter’s administration, over 2 million Cambodians were exterminated by the demonic Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot. Lesser known is the Biafra Genocide of Nigeria during democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s term, in which 2-3 million Nigerian Christians were starved to death by the country’s northern Muslim tribes. Then there are the several genocides that occurred during the terms of democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, most notably the Holocaust, where at least 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazi’s.

Writer and editor J.R. Dunn of the American Thinker wrote a great article in July 2007 called “Democide: Democrats and the Awful Truth of Genocide.” Perhaps the most fascinating, and chilling, part of Dunn’s piece is how the Democrats responded in each of these genocides:

“Another troubling point is that in most cases, very little was done in response to the crises. Many of the episodes, as we’ve grown used to seeing, are accompanied by open denial or an almost willful refusal to admit that any such thing is happening. Denial is usually the product of individuals or groups sympathizing with or aiding the killers – the Communist Party during the 1930s, the New Left following the Vietnam War. Unwillingness to believe, though much more common, is not often a product of evil intent, but simply an inability to acknowledge that horror on such a scale is possible.”

Consider that this article was written nearly 18 months before Barack Obama took office and 4 years before the Syrian Civil War began. How prophetic, particularly when history has a way of repeating itself.

We can’t get caught in the minutia battles of what to call groups that perpetrate genocides. In the end, it doesn’t matter whether ISIS is called “Islamic terrorists” or “extremist jihadists.” What matters is that Obama explains why he has done so little to stop the genocide and why he is indeed in denial.

Follow James on Twitter @NY_2_Carolina

Back to top button