I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
Which is worse: using “child soldiers” to fight genocide or genociding children including those too young to be soldiers?
B/c the “both sides” argument is just obvious BS.
I would say killing children in large numbers is a form of genocide.
Errr- i see why you might want to say that but that’s not how it works
It seems like it is to me. Killing all the children means there won’t be a next generation.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
I am comparing your use of the word ‘genocide’ to describe a rebel group because they use under-18 soldiers to dwight accusing a pushy italian-american insurance salesman of being in the mob because he drives an suv.
Not as funny when it needs to be explained, though.
Cool, that’s not what I said, but ok.
Maybe don’t put words in my mouth?
So your point about them using child soldiers is unrelated to your claim that they’re “killing children in large numbers”?
Seemed like you were conflating the two, maybe I got that wrong.
When you casually drop ‘genocide’ into a conversation without elaborating on who or what you’re talking about you’re likely to cause some confusion.