in article 41720AE3.2AC7E8B2@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 10/17/04 3:02 PM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>>> Then why do we not use these same titles for the actions other forces during
>>> their recent military campaigns or wars, for example, to describe what has
>>> happened in parts of Africa, or in the Balkans? Why do we not say the
>>> "Darfur
>>> Massacre" or the "Rape of Bosnia"?
>> 
>> In both cases a stronger term has been used: genocide.
> 
> So why are they not widely known as "The Genocide of Darfur" or "The Bosnian
> Genocide", the way we use the terms "Nanking Massacre" or "Rape of Nanking"?

They have been linked to genocide. The fact that there is a historical use
of "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking" has more to do with the fact
that sufficient time has past to have such identifications, and because the
actions in Darfur and Bosnia really didn't impact the US emotionally as the
occurrences in China. Darfur and Bosnia were minor military actions on our
part, compared to four years (or more) of our military involvement in the
defense of China against Japanese aggression.