In 2003 a civil war began in darfur. a united nations report released in 2004 argued that: generally speaking, the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not show a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes. although many people disagree, in this passage the united nations is arguing that the conflict in darfur is not

Question

Victor Hogan

History

2 June, 02:34

In 2003 a civil war began in darfur. a united nations report released in 2004 argued that: generally speaking, the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not show a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes. although many people disagree, in this passage the united nations is arguing that the conflict in darfur is not

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Brody Lam · Answer 1

The claim is that it was not genocide.

Genocide is the planned masaccre and annihilation of a particular group of people, tribe, religious group.

The UN termed it as more of a civil war than a genocide as the targeted people were not targetted because of affiliation to a particular tribe race or religion but for the sole reason of displacing them, not killing them.