" 
 :::No, not ""men were killed"" - men were SELECTED to be killed, based on the fact that they were MEN. Please read the ""Gendercide and genocide"" piece above which goes into this in quite a lot of detail. I have never said anything about ""men's rights"", and I don't have any buddies here. If anyone is pushing a fringe view, it is you - you are the one, remember, who thought that Srebrenica was also not an example of violence against men (but you retreated with tail between legs), you also though Abu Ghraib was not an example of violence against men (but if you care to read sources, you will again retreat with tail between legs). Marek, you're going to lose on this one, too, so why not give up now? Men were targeted because they were men - old men, 12 year old boys - where exactly are your sources that say the Nazis killed them because they were a threat? Bullshit!!! The nazi's killed them because the commander was furious and he wanted to teach the Greek partisans a lesson, and the lesson was, we will slaughter all of your men and burn your village, that was the order, and one group actually undertook to execute that order. That's what the sources say. You're the one who is making up stories about why they were killed ""Cuz Nazis liked to kill people, cuz they were a threat, blah blah"" - what-EVER. Why don't you bring some sources of your own that demonstrate that this isn't violence against men, or sources that discuss how men WERENT targeted for execution, or how men WERENT separated from the women and children and machine-gunned after being promised safety. Oh, wait, you don't have ANY such sources, do you, Marek, just your opinions?? How is it that you demand sources but provide none of your own, and then don't even bother to engage with the sources I provided?  "