Yep. The troubles. Obviously genocide.
I mean put it side by side with Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the war in the Congo and you can see the immediate similarity. ^_^
pardon my latin, but in a stricto sensu definition of genocide, it is the targetting of victims based both on race, origin, and religious beliefs. meaning that by a technicality, the troubles count, since it was targetting the irish by the irish, based on their faith. hell, it's that technicality that allowed the nazis to indiscriminately target ashkenazi, sefardic, falasha, and other ethnicities of jews.
i'll give you that race was not the primary factor in the troubles, thus my questionning it based both on political and religious reasons, as others have said before me.
also, i'm not gonna expound on it, but have we mentionned the armenian genocide here, yet? just out of curiosity and completionism.
1. If you suddenly decide to classify every period of sectarian violence in history as genocide your list becomes so long as to basically become meaningless.
2. The initial accusation was that white people commit 90% of all genocides. Ottoman Turks are now...white? Bit of a stretch, why don't we include the rape of the nanking aswell if we're going for completionism eh?
1. i never said that. i didn't stress the point that for a genocide to occur, the be-all end-all goal is to kill as many as possible. the crusades weren't a genocide. there was a goal behind it. the killing of europeans/muslims was incidental.
2. once again, i believe you misinterpreted a remark. there was a mention of "90% of genocides are committed by people that resemble you", but once again, i insist that that was a general "you". meaning that no, there's no "90% of genocides are committed by whites"(assuming you're white), more like "90% of genocides are committed by people that look alike/share a background/culture". at least, that's what i'm talking about. i don't know for the rest of the board. so based on my interpretation, the troubles counts (irish vs. irish), rwanda counts (hutu vs. tutsi), and nazis count sort of (in the case of the ashkenazi).
but since you brought up the rape of nanking, it's asian vs. asian (granted, not chinese vs. chinese, but vs. japanese). i believe the 90% figure is a pidooma, but there is an undeniable pattern. off the top of my head, the only counter-example i can think of is regarding native americans. there's more i'm sure, but let's face it, i'm only giving this discussion cursory interest.