Genocide or Not in Syria

According to the current definition of genocide, the conflict in Syria is not a genocide. This is because the intention is not to eliminate a certain ethnical or religious group, but rather the government's attempt to remain in power. If Political reasons where included in the definition of genocide, then the conflict would be genocide. Despite not being genocide, I believe the international community should get involved. I believe so because the government is killing many often unarmed civilians. Even if it isn't genocide, it is still mass murder, and is morally unacceptable.

Who's to blame for Rwanda?

The Rwandan genocide, like other genocides, is the responsibility of everyone who knew about it. The people directly committing the genocide are probably the guiltiest, because it was their idea. They were the ones who decided to eliminate countless innocents based on their prejudice, and actually went about killing them. However, the people who knew about it and did nothing are also partially to blame. This is because many countries who knew about it had the ability to stop the genocide or at least save more people, but chose not to in the interest of cost and the lives of their soldiers. Also, through inaction, they are almost encouraging more genocide because they prove the international community is unwilling to act and won't stop others from doing the same.

Assessing Responsibility WS

I think that the proper response of the individuals who simply complied with the Nazi rule should have been to instead of doing nothing, standing up for what they really think. The direct subordinates for example, could have refused orders to round up and execute the Jews. The proper response for the US should have been to not just fight the Nazis, but also take better care of the Jews who where in need of help. For any future genocides, I believe the international community should be more willing to help the victims, and give far more opposition towards countries committing it, such as through trade embargoes and other treaties to deprive them of the resources they need to commit the genocide. If that doesn't work, then countries should force the committing country to stop through force. 

Defiance: Day 3

I would have chosen C., The group starts to beat the scout, and then Tuvia stops them. I chose this one because I think that the others would not have stoped due to their own hatred, but Tuvia has a strong character and should not have let them beat the scout to death. This connects to my beleifes because just because someone is working for your enemy doesn't mean that they are your enemy. I don't think, because of their own risks, they should have let him go freely, but they should also not have killed him.