If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   There are still a few Nazis out there, so take a good a look at that old man down the street. You never know   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 204
    More: Obvious, war criminals, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Nazis, Third Reich, accessory to murder, Holocaust victims, sobibor, Efraim Zuroff  
•       •       •

8576 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2013 at 10:11 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-28 10:47:14 AM

karmachameleon: Your 12-year-old son, 15-year-old daughter, and your wife of 20 years have all been found murdered in your home that's been robbed, stabbed to death when they interrupted the home intruder.  The police work the case hard, but nothing turns up.  A year passes.  Two years.  Are you over it?  Do you ask the police to call off the investigation?  Of course not.  5 years pass.  10.  At what point do you tell the police to put away the file and forget all about it?

Never, of course.  You could live another 30 or 40 or even 50 years, and still never forget that the person who murdered your family was never caught.  If you're a mentally healthy person you've moved on and built a new life for yourself, but you'd never forget.  It's not about vengeance, and it's not about perennial victim hood.  It's about justice, or more specifically, closure.  You've been the victim of a terrible crime, and the loop has been left open.  Most normal, sane people need that loop closed.

Those of you advocating some kind of statute of limitations on murder and genocide haven't thought this through.  Simple as that.  Put yourself in a victim's shoes, and then ask yourself honestly if you'd still be advocating letting them off the hook.  There are good reasons why murder has no statute of limitations.  Justice is served whether the perp is 20 or 90.  Yes, at 90 it's too little too late, but a little is better than none at all.  The only people who would say it's worthless are those people who are seeking vengeance and not justice, so I guess that tells us a little about what worldview filter advocates of limitations are putting this situation through.


Some of the farkers here would have you believe that 60+ years later they would all but hug the killer while forgiving him.
 
2013-07-28 10:55:22 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: So... what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center want to do?  Jail them for the year they have left, on the taxpayer dime, to get vengeance?


Yeah, how dare we pay to prosecute war criminals. I am sure they are totes sorry for what they did.
 
2013-07-28 11:12:30 AM

hubiestubert: Smackledorfer: Smackledorfer: hubiestubert: For the folks who think that these are just poor old men...watch who comes out for their funerals...

In fairness, this goes for the monsters that my mother's people put in charge of things too. Genocide doesn't have a statute of limitations. It's not about revenge, it's about holding them responsible, and not making them creatures of pity. It's about making them face what they've done. Plain and simple. It won't reach some, but as a society and a circle of societies, how we face these horrors, drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Never again" is important. As important today as it was then. Ethnic cleansing is still an issue. It is still going on. And not just in Africa, not just in out of the way nations, but in Europe and the whole situation in Georgia, just recently, was based on folks who figured that if they just exterminated their neighbors, everything would be fine. Mind you, the Ossetians called on the Bolsheviks to help them NOT be exterminated way back, and again, after Georgia split, folks figured that it was still a good option.

Tell yourselves, O ye defenders of the poor downtrodden monsters, that it's been too long. Then look into the faces of those who survived. Look into the faces of their children, and their children's children, who would never have been if these pieces of kuso had their way.

We can ignore it, because it's more convenient. But sometimes, it's a matter of standing up and saying, "No. No more."

If you think busting a 90+ year old for ANY crime has some deterrant factor, you are sorely mistaken.

You say it is about holding people responsible and not revenge, but what other purpose does punishment here serve? I still see nothing but revenge.

Then you haven't ever had to deal with skinheads or other of their ilk then. I've got some lovely scars from a skin and a knife who thought he was doing his "duty." This is not just about the men who committed atrocity, it's about delivering a message to those who hold them as heroes.

These men are heroes to these folks. The Holocaust in their eyes was "a good start." It still is. The Ultranationalists in Japan have a similar mindset, and in my mother's land, it's JUST as disturbing, and more so, that the government in Japan glosses over the atrocities committed. At least Germany tries to come to grips with their history--even though, in all my time in Germany, I never met a single German who admitted that anyone in their family was a part of the regime, or even had family who fought. This is not just about justice for the families, to see the men and women who committed atrocities brought to court, and given their day in court. That is the difference. These monsters, who consigned so many to die in camps, to be killed in the streets, to be buried en mass, see their day in court. Because we are societies governed by law. This about serving the law. That justice. Not simply dragged out into the street and shot, not quietly assassinated, but to see them face the law, to see the faces of their accusers, and realize that they have failed.

That entire post, in addition to baseless assumptions, has nothing to do with what I said.

If your new logic is the 'rule of law' line, I think you may find yourself capable of thinking up dozens of areas in which strict enforcement doesn't serve the society of laws.

I am not saying what nazis did was not an atrocity, but if your only argument is the same one that people use in anti-drug discussions or anti-immigrant rants, then you have at the very least failed to make a good case. "it's the law" isn't good enough (well, at least not if you admit it isn't good enough in any other area).

If you mean by "baseless assumptions" that you missed the point of addressing not just the rule of law, but the scores of those who hold these folks as heroes, then, yes, I will cop to making that assumption. It's not just about serving justice for those who were involved. It's not just for the families of those affected. It is about sending a message to those who still think it's not an entirely bad idea, because people have forgotten, and their cause is just enough.

Will it deter the most hardened? Not as well as one might hope, but the "faithful" aren't going to be swayed by simply the stick of hard time, as they see the glory in it. That is where the rule of law comes in. Not some awful crusade that elevates them to martyr status, as being so horrible, so much of a challenge that society must do terrible things to them. Nope. That is attractive to the faithful. They want the glory. Instead, it's a matter of simple justice, and locking them away, with no glory, no grand standing, but a simple matter of excising them the population, and letting them sit in their cells to ponder the "glory" in being left to be forgotten.

The assumptions on this issue are your own. It's not a matter of revenge, it's not a matter of nebulous justice, it's about removing the cancers from our society, and letting them starve on the vine. They want the glory. They want the martyrdom. They want to be so very special, so challenging, such powerful figures that they can attract even more attention. Locking them away, without much fanfare, that denies them that. Which in fairness is really what we should have done in the case of those attached to Al Qaida. Not given them a special prison, and all the attention, but simply tried them, locked them away, and let their movement die on the vine. Instead, we fed into the complex as being so special, so dangerous, so very unique, that we couldn't try them openly. THAT is the other extreme from simply ignoring them. Justice served, that is the middle road. Not special. Just something that needs to be excised from the body politic, and to move on.


If your argument wasn't about revenge you wouldn't have based your views on the personal damage racists have dealt to you. That screams revenge. You basically told me that my opinion doesn't count because I, by your baseless assumption, have never been one. Your default stance is that you have more right to an opinion than I, simply by way of our disagreeing; that anyone who disagrees with you cannot have your experiences and thus cannot hold their own views as valid.

You have that stance, but then you claim it is about justice and rule of law? Fine pair of blinders you have on.
 
2013-07-28 11:24:22 AM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: I'd feel better about this if there were ANY efforts in the US to prosecute high-level financial criminals for acts causing widespread distress, poverty, and stress-related death to millions, as well as prosecution for businessmen and scientists who sign off on unsafe food, drink, pharmaceuticals and other consumer products.


Hitler's mistake was in not forming a limited-liability corporation.
 
2013-07-28 11:43:22 AM
Smackledorfer: If your argument wasn't about revenge you wouldn't have based your views on the personal damage racists have dealt to you. That screams revenge. You basically told me that my opinion doesn't count because I, by your baseless assumption, have never been one. Your default stance is that you have more right to an opinion than I, simply by way of our disagreeing; that anyone who disagrees with you cannot have your experiences and thus cannot hold their own views as valid.

You have that stance, but then you claim it is about justice and rule of law? Fine pair of blinders you have on.


No, that was to put things into perspective. I have had dealings with the folks who revere the folks who we are talking about. Perspective, I know, is sometimes difficult, because it's easier to make broad generalizations, but sometimes you have to look at the larger picture, and understand the issue from more than simply one single angle.

Mind you, the shows where I have had to deal with skins and their ilk, were actually performed in a club where the owner was Jewish. The GM was Jewish. The floor manager was Jewish. And oddly enough, a quarter of the staff were African American. It sort of tickled us to take their money, because so few clubs would. Watching their discomfort with folks responsible for their safety being so low on their own personal genetic totem pole, that was sort to chucklesome. And in all honesty, despite really disliking these folks, it was a responsibility we took seriously. And while I managed to get stabbed one night, we garnered all manner of ill will and mild hurts defending these folks, because oddly enough, you don't pick and choose willy-nilly who you keep safe when they're under your roof.

Again, the assumptions thus far, are on your own end, and the blinders seem to be your own preconceptions. Justice and the law often are at odds. But if we want to call ourselves just societies, we don't toss out the rule of law, and concepts of justice because they get a bit irksome or difficult, and that really seems to be the thrust of things: it's just too long ago, and they're too old for it to matter. But it does matter. Not just to the families, not just to their progeny, or their communities, but also to the folks who revere these folks as heroes. It is sending a message that it will not stand, and that even though it was a while ago, folks have NOT forgotten. Those who forget the lessons of the past, are doomed to repeat them.

There are plenty of examples that folks are still willing to engage in just this sort of genocide, and, in fairness, we need to go after them as well. Not just in Eastern Europe, not just in Africa or Asia, but the message needs to be delivered that civilized folks will not stand for this. Sadly, this is not always the case, and often the UN seems content to think that strongly worded letters will suffice. Certainly in the case of Georgia, it took rolling out of tanks to get the message across, and still, the folks who instigated this particular pogrom won't even admit that they were carrying out a campaign started in the beginning decades of the last century.

It isn't just about Nazis. It comes down to addressing genocide, and ethnic cleansing, and holding folks accountable. To hold up their actions up not for the sake of revenge--which you seem obsessed with--but rather to show that these concepts have no place, and that they will not be allowed to prosper in simply killing off their "surplus" population, when those in excess are different and thus not rating standing as human in their minds. Reminding folks that they are indeed human and valued is part of that pesky law. Be that racial equality, religious equality, even those quirky homosexuals are all part of the human family, and that exterminating folks because they are different will not stand.

Revenge? I won't shed many a tear for many to be certain, but the important thing is to not simply to punish, but to set an example that society will not hold for this, and that those who revere these folks understand that. Understand that their time will not come again. We are failing at this in many places, but it is still the goal.
 
2013-07-28 11:48:29 AM

vygramul: BolshyGreatYarblocks: I'd feel better about this if there were ANY efforts in the US to prosecute high-level financial criminals for acts causing widespread distress, poverty, and stress-related death to millions, as well as prosecution for businessmen and scientists who sign off on unsafe food, drink, pharmaceuticals and other consumer products.

Hitler's mistake was in not forming a limited-liability corporation.


It really was a failing of the Fascists' assisted market model...
 
2013-07-28 11:57:39 AM

Tanukis_Parachute: I preferred the burbs over the serious one. The burbs is a seriously underrated comedy.


So much this.  Carrie Fisher's career did not tank after Star Wars as spectacularly as people say because she made this gem.
 
2013-07-28 12:03:04 PM

BroncoFan_17: Nazis are bad......but admit it, Detroit and Chicago could benefit from their presence for a few weeks.


fc06.deviantart.net

"I hate Illinois Nazis!"

 
2013-07-28 12:10:53 PM

hubiestubert: No, that was to put things into perspective.


Right, the perspective in which only those who have suffered pain equal or greater to yours can weigh in on a discussion about justice, and otherwise get dismissed entirely.

One minute you talk of justice and tell me that since I've never been stabbed like you I can't understand it.
Then you say it is justice because of the rule of law.
Now you admit that justice and rule of law are sometimes at odds, but that we as a nation cannot ever toss out rule of law.

You are all over the road, because you have replaced reason and logic with emotion.  I don't respect you any less for it, but it does nothing to bolster your argument.  Step back from this for a second.  Thus far you have failed to stick to a point; you respond to each of my posts by switching to a different tactic. You have made the discussion personal, about what you think my experiences are and why yours make your view somehow more valid.


If you honestly think a single wanna-be race criminal is deterred or shown whats-what by the continued nazi hunt, you are out of your mind.  For that to happen someone would have to thinking "gee, I'd like to murder some xxx, and I will definitely get away with it in the short term at least, but what will happen to me when I'm 95?" You aren't sending anyone any messages here.  Nobody thinks anyone has forgotten. Nobody thinks society will accept their potential fourth reich. What continued use of resources hunting 95 year old nazies does is waste resources that could be better applied elsewhere.

hubiestubert: revenge--which you seem obsessed with


The obsession is clearly yours. How can I be obsessed with revenge when by your own knowledge you are certain I've never been hurt by racism in my life? How can I be the one obsessed with revenge when I'm calling for the opposite of revenge, and you are calling for the spending of resources, no matter how great, to preserve the rule of law and justice, which you admit may or may not actually have meaning, in order to get justice for the victimized?  That is revenge if ever I looked at it. If you stopped filling your thoughts with emotions and assumptions about me, you might be capable of seeing that is all you've argued for in this thread, with the half-assed support of an extremely weak appeal to deterrence.
 
2013-07-28 12:40:23 PM

Smackledorfer: hubiestubert: No, that was to put things into perspective.

Right, the perspective in which only those who have suffered pain equal or greater to yours can weigh in on a discussion about justice, and otherwise get dismissed entirely.

One minute you talk of justice and tell me that since I've never been stabbed like you I can't understand it.
Then you say it is justice because of the rule of law.
Now you admit that justice and rule of law are sometimes at odds, but that we as a nation cannot ever toss out rule of law.

You are all over the road, because you have replaced reason and logic with emotion.  I don't respect you any less for it, but it does nothing to bolster your argument.  Step back from this for a second.  Thus far you have failed to stick to a point; you respond to each of my posts by switching to a different tactic. You have made the discussion personal, about what you think my experiences are and why yours make your view somehow more valid.

If you honestly think a single wanna-be race criminal is deterred or shown whats-what by the continued nazi hunt, you are out of your mind.  For that to happen someone would have to thinking "gee, I'd like to murder some xxx, and I will definitely get away with it in the short term at least, but what will happen to me when I'm 95?" You aren't sending anyone any messages here.  Nobody thinks anyone has forgotten. Nobody thinks society will accept their potential fourth reich. What continued use of resources hunting 95 year old nazies does is waste resources that could be better applied elsewhere.

hubiestubert: revenge--which you seem obsessed with


The obsession is clearly yours. How can I be obsessed with revenge when by your own knowledge you are certain I've never been hurt by racism in my life? How can I be the one obsessed with revenge when I'm calling for the opposite of revenge, and you are calling for the spending of resources, no matter how great, to preserve the rule of law and justice, which you admit may or may not actually have meaning, in order to get justice for the victimized?  That is revenge if ever I looked at it. If you stopped filling your thoughts with emotions and assumptions about me, you might be capable of seeing that is all you've argued for in this thread, with the half-assed support of an extremely weak appeal to deterrence.

The point is not my being stabbed, or suffered personally. The point is having dealt with the folks who revere this sort of symbol. And that's what they are at this point: symbols. This is where I think you've missed the point. Not the stabbing, not the suffering--cripes, it was nine stitches, and I've had worse trips to the hospital just from work related accidents. It is putting experience into perspective. Understanding these folks having dealt with them up close and personal. Conversations, and more.

You don't tear apart the symbol with revenge. That only makes those symbols stronger. More entrenched. Skins and their ilk LOVE to be special. They crave it. Their entire ethos is etched on that basis, and their scapegoats are the folks that they blame for not getting their due. They are willing to do terrible things in order to validate this, because otherwise they might have to admit that their own ills are of their own doing. The best way to do that is to NOT treat them as so special that they require extreme measures, but simple justice for their deeds. Their day in court, their day to defend their actions, and if found wanting, they serve their time for it.

Mind you, there ARE plenty of war criminals, and far more recent ones that also need to be addressed. And there is a particular lack of will on the part of many, because it's often difficult. Difficult and the law shouldn't be confused though.

That folks have harried and committed atrocity should be the issue. Not the age, nor the time passed. That we hold to the idea that their deeds are not acceptable, that they don't get a pass, and it comes down to not just deterrence--because skins and their ilk are not going to be swayed by the thought of hard time. Instead, you show that the basis of their uniqueness is false. Not them personally, but their actions are what have brought them down. They can claim that their cause is the issue, but you use the rule of law to address the actions. That the basis for their persecution is NOT simply their ideology or race, but that their actions are at the center.

People will hate. They will burn in their bellies for all sorts of reasons. The question is not about that hate, their ideology, but to hold their actions accountable. Man can hate for his entire life, preach all he wants about the terribleness of his particular bugbear, and you address each action. You disagree with their stand, then you address the speech in kind if so inclined. You address actions that harm with the rule of law, and take away their desperate cry that they are special, so special that they can ignore such petty concerns. Because that is the point. To take away these symbols, these rallying points. Not revenge, because these folks thrive on the thought. It only feeds into the thought that they are so special, so very right that they must be feared by those too weak to take the stand that they've chosen. You dismantle this idea that they are so special that they can act with impunity, and you, as in the societal you, do so to address that fact that their actions are the issue. Think what they want, but act upon it, and then society addresses those actions.
 
2013-07-28 12:49:50 PM
This entire mess should have been dealt with by 1950. Justice delayed is justice denied.
 
2013-07-28 12:54:26 PM
karmachameleon:
Those of you advocating some kind of statute of limitations on murder and genocide haven't thought this through.  Simple as that.  Put yourself in a victim's shoes, and then ask yourself honestly if you'd still be advocating letting them off the hook.  There are good reasons why murder has no statute of limitations.  Justice is served whether the perp is 20 or 90.  Yes, at 90 it's too little too late, but a little is better than none at all.  The only people who would say it's worthless are those people who are seeking vengeance and not justice, so I guess that tells us a little about what worldview filter advocates of limitations are putting this situation through.

Nobody is advocating anything, but something you don't understand is after the war was over there were organizations formed to collect as much information as possible. One man for example Simon Wiesenthal was a holocaust survivor and Jew. After the war he was one of the famous nazi hunters who tracked down quite a few and wrote numerous books. Now having read two of simon's books I later found out he has been discredited among other nazi hunters for having to many conflcting stories. Here's the problem, after WW2 evidence was collected not on a scale like we have today, back then records were destroyed by the germans in retreats and all you relied on were a few eye witnesses and testimony, most taken before the victims died.

Now look at the age, 90. When would he have been born? a typical nazi officer one who would give the orders to kill would of died around 1970s possibly 1980s at the very most. Just because the man is tied to the SS does not make him a cold bloody murder, in fact most fear the SS because they were some of the most fanatical and best combat troops in the world. While they took orders and performed them without question and many did kill civilians, war is war.

If you think most don't have any family effected think again, I lost more then half my family in Budapest during 1944/45.
 
2013-07-28 01:01:17 PM
Unless Hitler actually got away and is still around, at this point, I am perfectly willing to just let it go.  If we need any proof that these guys aren't really monsters, but just soldiers following orders, it is they have been able to lead productive lives abiding by the laws of whatever nation they ended up in for close to 70 years.

Besides, so much time has passed,  I think it would be impossible to give any of then a fair trial.
 
2013-07-28 01:01:42 PM

Mock26: Smackledorfer: Benevolent Misanthrope:

So... what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center want to do?  Jail them for the year they have left, on the taxpayer dime, to get vengeance?

I am with you on this.

Nothing is served by continuuing the hunt at this point. Vengeance isn't justice.

But this is not vengeance.  It is justice.


Then please tell me what the difference is. Especially 68 years (and almost 3 months) later, after the Shoah definitively ended with the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime, when the murderers you seek are 90-some years old.

And please don't hand me anything about "no statute of limitations for murder," unless you can prove that the law has never been used as an instrument of vengeance. Note that I'm not arguing that "justice" and revenge" can never coincide, only that hunting somebody to the ends of the Earth for almost 70 years sounds a bit too "dedicated" to be purely altruistic.

Nor am I saying that "the Jews" should not get revenge. I recognize revenge as valid in some cases where injury has been committed, and murdering millions of Jews for being Jews can hardly be construed as anything but. But don't be hypocritical: if justice were better served by letting them go free you still would not consider it. You don't hunt somebody down for 68 years to assure him that all is forgiven.

There's an old saying of varied attributions that "Revenge is a dish best served cold." 68 years is pretty cold alright. Such dedication!

The Nazis were also fanatically dedicated, in their case to the extermination of European Jewry: even when killing Jews proved to be a stupid diversion from the war effort, when the Soviet Army was well into the process of kicking the Nazis' asses back to Berlin and then some, they kept right ahead with what they called their just cause. They hated the Jews so much they kept hunting them down wherever they could reach for as long as they could; that they left any Jews alive when they cut and ran from the camps can only be an oversight, surely this was not done by the Führer's order. In the teeth of Stalin's army they kept murdering innocents. Surely anybody who calls hunting somebody down for 68 years "justice" has got to admire their dedication. "We will not rest until every last Enemy has been hunted down and 'treated appropriately,' even when there is no longer any practical benefit to doing so (if there ever was), even if our own friends stand back and shake their heads at what they call our insanity." At least unlike Hitler you see no need to hunt down every last Nazi even if it means the death of every last Jew, but then for 68 years you've been on the winning side.

Another thing: let's not forget that the Nazis too claimed their cause was just, that they were seeking justice on "the Jews" for all the alleged wrongs they'd committed against their people. (No I'm not saying they were correct, only pointing out that that's what they said.) Furthermore the Nazis said they aimed to deter any other (potential) enemy from committing injustice against the German nation and the Aryan race, that the signal example rendered unto the Jews should suffice. And yes I do mean to trace a faint family resemblance here, as I do elsewhere by pointing out that Zionism is a form of fascism. Granted I'd much rather live in today's Israel than Nazi Germany or even today's Iran, but that's just saying that I'd rather hammer my thumb than have my head bashed in.

And oh. I give you credit by assuming you're a Jew, with a just claim to revenge: someone who seeks to justify someone else's fanatical dedication to "justice" is mainly just nuts.


P.S. No I don't buy the "weak Hitler" theory. After swearing in print and in public for 25 years that he hated the Jews and wanted them all dead the Holocaust "just happened?" That's just plain silly, and Mommsen et al. should be ashamed of themselves. At least give that dedicated fanatic hate-filled creep credit where it's due: he swore to eliminate the Jews of Europe and he damn near did.
 
2013-07-28 01:16:35 PM

ACunningPlan: you are a puppet: Is it safe?

Yes it's safe. It's very safe. It's so safe you wouldn't believe it.


Came here for this exchange, left never wanting to go to the dentist again
 
2013-07-28 01:29:45 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Unless Hitler actually got away and is still around, at this point, I am perfectly willing to just let it go.  If we need any proof that these guys aren't really monsters, but just soldiers following orders, it is they have been able to lead productive lives abiding by the laws of whatever nation they ended up in for close to 70 years.

Besides, so much time has passed,  I think it would be impossible to give any of then a fair trial.


If you believe this, then there is no way you can enforce the Nuremberg Doctrine in the least. Following orders will become a legitimate defense to any inhuman act.
 
2013-07-28 01:46:25 PM

hardinparamedic: Pumpernickel bread: Unless Hitler actually got away and is still around, at this point, I am perfectly willing to just let it go.  If we need any proof that these guys aren't really monsters, but just soldiers following orders, it is they have been able to lead productive lives abiding by the laws of whatever nation they ended up in for close to 70 years.

Besides, so much time has passed,  I think it would be impossible to give any of then a fair trial.

If you believe this, then there is no way you can enforce the Nuremberg Doctrine in the least. Following orders will become a legitimate defense to any inhuman act.


Problem is following orders was the soldiers defense. Imagine if you are a soldier during ww2, and your commander says burn down this village or you will be shipped to the eastern front. You do what you have to do to survive. You cannot simply say no and to disobey orders is ground for mutiny and a general court marshal, during war time? you get hanged or sent to the eastern front which generally means you are dead either way. Who are you going to appeal to? Red cross? Nope. Everyone wants to blame everyone else, but if you are in command and give the orders if far different then having to be the peon who does the order.
 
2013-07-28 02:17:47 PM

Misconduc: hardinparamedic: Pumpernickel bread: Unless Hitler actually got away and is still around, at this point, I am perfectly willing to just let it go.  If we need any proof that these guys aren't really monsters, but just soldiers following orders, it is they have been able to lead productive lives abiding by the laws of whatever nation they ended up in for close to 70 years.

Besides, so much time has passed,  I think it would be impossible to give any of then a fair trial.

If you believe this, then there is no way you can enforce the Nuremberg Doctrine in the least. Following orders will become a legitimate defense to any inhuman act.

Problem is following orders was the soldiers defense. Imagine if you are a soldier during ww2, and your commander says burn down this village or you will be shipped to the eastern front. You do what you have to do to survive. You cannot simply say no and to disobey orders is ground for mutiny and a general court marshal, during war time? you get hanged or sent to the eastern front which generally means you are dead either way. Who are you going to appeal to? Red cross? Nope. Everyone wants to blame everyone else, but if you are in command and give the orders if far different then having to be the peon who does the order.


Ill take my chances with maybe getting hanged as a war criminal years down the road over getting lined up against the wall and shot today if Im ever in such a position.
 
2013-07-28 02:24:35 PM

Misconduc: Imagine if you are a soldier during ww2, and your commander says burn down this village or you will be shipped to the eastern front. You do what you have to do to survive. You cannot simply say no and to disobey orders is ground for mutiny and a general court marshal, during war time? you get hanged or sent to the eastern front which generally means you are dead either way.


This is actually incorrect. The people doing the killing in the SS were volunteers until the last year of the war, when conscription became the name of the game. People frequently were transferred out of concentration camps and death squads to other units willingly.
 
2013-07-28 02:51:47 PM

hardinparamedic: Misconduc: Imagine if you are a soldier during ww2, and your commander says burn down this village or you will be shipped to the eastern front. You do what you have to do to survive. You cannot simply say no and to disobey orders is ground for mutiny and a general court marshal, during war time? you get hanged or sent to the eastern front which generally means you are dead either way.

This is actually incorrect. The people doing the killing in the SS were volunteers until the last year of the war, when conscription became the name of the game. People frequently were transferred out of concentration camps and death squads to other units willingly.


There was still plenty of killing going on by the regular army. But Misconduc is also wrong because not a single account of a soldier being reprimanded or otherwise retaliated against for failing to obey such orders has been found, but they HAVE found instances of soldiers refusing and not having any penalty for doing so.

It's an understandable myth - we tend to have a cartoonish view of what it was like for Germans under Hitler. It was a lot less oppressive for proper Aryan folk than the movies make it look.
 
2013-07-28 03:15:38 PM

vygramul: hardinparamedic: Misconduc: Imagine if you are a soldier during ww2, and your commander says burn down this village or you will be shipped to the eastern front. You do what you have to do to survive. You cannot simply say no and to disobey orders is ground for mutiny and a general court marshal, during war time? you get hanged or sent to the eastern front which generally means you are dead either way.

There was still plenty of killing going on by the regular army. But Misconduc is also wrong because not a single account of a soldier being reprimanded or otherwise retaliated against for failing to obey such orders has been found, but they HAVE found instances of soldiers refusing and not having any penalty for doing so.



It depends on the officer in charge, the Wehrmacht was vastly different then the SS. There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders. The german army had one of the strictest disciplines of any army during world war two. When I say german army I mean the Wehrmacht not the SS. There were German Wehrmacht who gave orders to kill, but it was highly unlikely vs an SS officer.
 
2013-07-28 03:29:37 PM
The One True TheDavid: Mock26: Smackledorfer: Benevolent Misanthrope:

So... what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center want to do?  Jail them for the year they have left, on the taxpayer dime, to get vengeance?

I am with you on this.

Nothing is served by continuuing the hunt at this point. Vengeance isn't justice.

But this is not vengeance.  It is justice.

Then please tell me what the difference is. Especially 68 years (and almost 3 months) later, after the Shoah definitively ended with the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime, when the murderers you seek are 90-some years old.

And please don't hand me anything about "no statute of limitations for murder," unless you can prove that the law has never been used as an instrument of vengeance. Note that I'm not arguing that "justice" and revenge" can never coincide, only that hunting somebody to the ends of the Earth for almost 70 years sounds a bit too "dedicated" to be purely altruistic.

Nor am I saying that "the Jews" should not get revenge. I recognize revenge as valid in some cases where injury has been committed, and murdering millions of Jews for being Jews can hardly be construed as anything but. But don't be hypocritical: if justice were better served by letting them go free you still would not consider it. You don't hunt somebody down for 68 years to assure him that all is forgiven.

There's an old saying of varied attributions that "Revenge is a dish best served cold." 68 years is pretty cold alright. Such dedication!

The Nazis were also fanatically dedicated, in their case to the extermination of European Jewry: even when killing Jews proved to be a stupid diversion from the war effort, when the Soviet Army was well into the process of kicking the Nazis' asses back to Berlin and then some, they kept right ahead with what they called their just cause. They hated the Jews so much they kept hunting them down wherever they could reach for as long as they could; that they left any Jews alive when they cut and ran from the camps can only be an oversight, surely this was not done by the Führer's order. In the teeth of Stalin's army they kept murdering innocents. Surely anybody who calls hunting somebody down for 68 years "justice" has got to admire their dedication. "We will not rest until every last Enemy has been hunted down and 'treated appropriately,' even when there is no longer any practical benefit to doing so (if there ever was), even if our own friends stand back and shake their heads at what they call our insanity." At least unlike Hitler you see no need to hunt down every last Nazi even if it means the death of every last Jew, but then for 68 years you've been on the winning side.

Another thing: let's not forget that the Nazis too claimed their cause was just, that they were seeking justice on "the Jews" for all the alleged wrongs they'd committed against their people. (No I'm not saying they were correct, only pointing out that that's what they said.) Furthermore the Nazis said they aimed to deter any other (potential) enemy from committing injustice against the German nation and the Aryan race, that the signal example rendered unto the Jews should suffice. And yes I do mean to trace a faint family resemblance here, as I do elsewhere by pointing out that Zionism is a form of fascism. Granted I'd much rather live in today's Israel than Nazi Germany or even today's Iran, but that's just saying that I'd rather hammer my thumb than have my head bashed in.

And oh. I give you credit by assuming you're a Jew, with a just claim to revenge: someone who seeks to justify someone else's fanatical dedication to "justice" is mainly just nuts.


P.S. No I don't buy the "weak Hitler" theory. After swearing in print and in public for 25 years that he hated the Jews and wanted them all dead the Holocaust "just happened?" That's just plain silly, and Mommsen et al. should be ashamed of themselves. At least give that dedicated fanatic hate-filled creep credit where it's due: he swore to eliminate the Jews of Europe and he damn near did.



Someone who cannot see the need to continue the hunt for those who contributed to the murder of nearly 6 million people is not mainly just nuts.  Such a person is completely nuts.  For whatever reason (though I am going with the theory that you are a white supremacist who thinks that 6 million was too low) you seem to think that just because 68 number of years have gone by that we should just forget about the atrocities that they committed and let them get away with it, so nothing I say will not make a difference to you.  Nor will my explaining the difference between justice and vengeance have any impact on you because you believe that they deserve to have gotten away with what they did, all because it was 68 years ago.

Out of curiosity, how many years should they have hunted before giving up?  1?  5?  10?

PS I am not a jew.  I do not have a stake in this, but in my opinion certain crimes should not have a statute of limitations, and murder is one of them.  But this is more than murder.  This was the attempted genocide of an entire group of people.  Hades, this was the attempted genocide of over a half doze groups of people.  The holocaust also targeted gypsies, ethnic poles (of whom almost 2 million were murdered), freemasons, disabled people, homosexuals, and jehovah's witnesses.  The Nazis were also responsible for the murder of over 10 million slavs.  Not to mention forced slavery of many of the people who were ultimately murdered.  So yeah, if you are OK with just letting that go because it was X number of years ago then there is no point in my trying to explain it to you, because your mind is completely closed.
 
2013-07-28 03:41:18 PM

Mugato: Can they prove these guys committed atrocities just because they were Nazis? Our soldiers committed some pretty sick shiat when we were in Viet Nam. Should we round up all Viet Nam vets?


But the victims were not Jews.
 
2013-07-28 03:53:15 PM

Vectron: Mugato: Can they prove these guys committed atrocities just because they were Nazis? Our soldiers committed some pretty sick shiat when we were in Viet Nam. Should we round up all Viet Nam vets?

But the victims were not Jews.


Neither were the europeans the Russians slaughtered across europe, the Hungarians and Poles. Mind the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese. How about George bush in his invasion of Iraq? Technology might of caught up enough we can put a single bomb through a window, however countless civilians have been slaughtered everywhere and just how many war criminals have been brought to court since WW2? A few bosnians?

Nazis were not the only bad guys.
 
2013-07-28 04:01:45 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: So... what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center want to do?  Jail them for the year they have left, on the taxpayer dime, to get vengeance?


They will be happy with the publicity, keeping everybody aware of a horrible piece of history which somehow justifies all the horrible history Israel, and her agents in other countries, are creating today. Which is why, right after 9/11, Discovery Times and the History Channel went to a 24/7 Nazi/Holocaust format. They kind of told on themselves with that.
 
2013-07-28 04:09:16 PM

Apik0r0s: Benevolent Misanthrope: So... what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center want to do?  Jail them for the year they have left, on the taxpayer dime, to get vengeance?

They will be happy with the publicity, keeping everybody aware of how much MONEY they need to continue going.

<-fixed it for ya
 
2013-07-28 04:12:20 PM

Misconduc: There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders.


Not a single one for refusing to take part in genocide. Not one.
 
2013-07-28 04:13:22 PM

Mugato: Can they prove these guys committed atrocities just because they were Nazis? Our soldiers committed some pretty sick shiat when we were in Viet Nam. Should we round up all Viet Nam vets?


No one is trying to round up all members of the Wehrmacht. That's not an appropriate comparison.
 
2013-07-28 04:27:29 PM

hardinparamedic: Pumpernickel bread: Unless Hitler actually got away and is still around, at this point, I am perfectly willing to just let it go.  If we need any proof that these guys aren't really monsters, but just soldiers following orders, it is they have been able to lead productive lives abiding by the laws of whatever nation they ended up in for close to 70 years.

Besides, so much time has passed,  I think it would be impossible to give any of then a fair trial.

If you believe this, then there is no way you can enforce the Nuremberg Doctrine in the least. Following orders will become a legitimate defense to any inhuman act.


Then maybe there is a problem with the doctrine.  I think most people would do what was ordered, even the killing others,  when the punishment for not doing so is death.  Like most militaries in wartime, the Germans made an example of deserters and those challenging authority.

It is the monster that will do it without a gun to his head.
 
2013-07-28 04:33:03 PM

Pumpernickel bread: when the punishment for not doing so is death.


Except it wasn't. Not a single instance of a german soldier being retaliated against for refusing to kill Jews has been documented. Not by thousands of diaries, thousands of personal accounts, and thousands of witness testimony from perps and survivors alike. Not a one. Niente. Keine.
 
2013-07-28 04:38:56 PM

vygramul: Misconduc: There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders.

Not a single one for refusing to take part in genocide. Not one.



Dead men tell no tales?
 
2013-07-28 05:10:28 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Misconduc: There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders.

Not a single one for refusing to take part in genocide. Not one.


Dead men tell no tales?


Unless they agree with you?
 
2013-07-28 05:29:46 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Misconduc: There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders.

Not a single one for refusing to take part in genocide. Not one.


Dead men tell no tales?


Problem is Amos has no idea how many, Its not widely published how many soldiers get court marshaled, especially during war - one thing the germans were great at was keeping records and logs, problem is when the war was getting lost much of the paper work was destroyed to protect their asses.  I am a military historian and I deeply regret having a fanatical interest in this subject because its far more gruesome then I could imagine, no horror movie comes close to some of the things I've read.

But as you say, dead men tell no tales - exactly. Books don't get published by dead men, only those who live, there are extremely few accounts or eye witnesses to events such as this, in fact the problem of trying to piece the information together because the records were destroyed. Amos believes not one did, in fact I recount at least a dozen stories, but the problem with fact and fiction is trying to piece together the timeline, in many cases it can't be done.

Look at  Simon Wiesenthalfor example, he's a nazi hunter that wrote quite a few books, until recently people compared the books and information he has, and found out he basically took partial information and filled in the blanks with his own lies and hearsay. Now nothing he says is credible, unfortunately I am not allowed to cite any of his work in anything I do, which makes researching that much more complicated.
 
2013-07-28 06:37:02 PM

hubiestubert: Smackledorfer: hubiestubert: No, that was to put things into perspective.

Right, the perspective in which only those who have suffered pain equal or greater to yours can weigh in on a discussion about justice, and otherwise get dismissed entirely.

One minute you talk of justice and tell me that since I've never been stabbed like you I can't understand it.
Then you say it is justice because of the rule of law.
Now you admit that justice and rule of law are sometimes at odds, but that we as a nation cannot ever toss out rule of law.

You are all over the road, because you have replaced reason and logic with emotion.  I don't respect you any less for it, but it does nothing to bolster your argument.  Step back from this for a second.  Thus far you have failed to stick to a point; you respond to each of my posts by switching to a different tactic. You have made the discussion personal, about what you think my experiences are and why yours make your view somehow more valid.

If you honestly think a single wanna-be race criminal is deterred or shown whats-what by the continued nazi hunt, you are out of your mind.  For that to happen someone would have to thinking "gee, I'd like to murder some xxx, and I will definitely get away with it in the short term at least, but what will happen to me when I'm 95?" You aren't sending anyone any messages here.  Nobody thinks anyone has forgotten. Nobody thinks society will accept their potential fourth reich. What continued use of resources hunting 95 year old nazies does is waste resources that could be better applied elsewhere.

hubiestubert: revenge--which you seem obsessed with

The obsession is clearly yours. How can I be obsessed with revenge when by your own knowledge you are certain I've never been hurt by racism in my life? How can I be the one obsessed with revenge when I'm calling for the opposite of revenge, and you are calling for the spending of resources, no matter how great, to preserve the rule of law and justice, which you admit may or may not actually have meaning, in order to get justice for the victimized?  That is revenge if ever I looked at it. If you stopped filling your thoughts with emotions and assumptions about me, you might be capable of seeing that is all you've argued for in this thread, with the half-assed support of an extremely weak appeal to deterrence.

The point is not my being stabbed, or suffered personally. The point is having dealt with the folks who revere this sort of symbol. And that's what they are at this point: symbols. This is where I think you've missed the point. Not the stabbing, not the suffering--cripes, it was nine stitches, and I've had worse trips to the hospital just from work related accidents. It is putting experience into perspective. Understanding these folks having dealt with them up close and personal. Conversations, and more.

You don't tear apart the symbol with revenge. That only makes those symbols stronger. More entrenched. Skins and their ilk LOVE to be special. They crave it. Their entire ethos is etched on that basis, and their scapegoats are the folks that they blame for not getting their due. They are willing to do terrible things in order to validate this, because otherwise they might have to admit that their own ills are of their own doing. The best way to do that is to NOT treat them as so special that they require extreme measures, but simple justice for their deeds. Their day in court, their day to defend their actions, and if found wanting, they serve their time for it.

Mind you, there ARE plenty of war criminals, and far more recent ones that also need to be addressed. And there is a particular lack of will on the part of many, because it's often difficult. Difficult and the law shouldn't be confused though.

That folks have harried and committed atrocity should be the issue. Not the age, nor the time passed. That we hold to the idea that their deeds are not acceptable, that they don't get a pass, and it comes down to not just deterrence--because skins and their ilk are not going to be swayed by the thought of hard time. Instead, you show that the basis of their uniqueness is false. Not them personally, but their actions are what have brought them down. They can claim that their cause is the issue, but you use the rule of law to address the actions. That the basis for their persecution is NOT simply their ideology or race, but that their actions are at the center.

People will hate. They will burn in their bellies for all sorts of reasons. The question is not about that hate, their ideology, but to hold their actions accountable. Man can hate for his entire life, preach all he wants about the terribleness of his particular bugbear, and you address each action. You disagree with their stand, then you address the speech in kind if so inclined. You address actions that harm with the rule of law, and take away their desperate cry that they are special, so special that they can ignore such petty concerns. Because that is the point. To take away these symbols, these rallying points. Not revenge, because these folks thrive on the thought. It only feeds into the thought that they are so special, so very right that they must be feared by those too weak to take the stand that they've chosen. You dismantle this idea that they are so special that they can act with impunity, and you, as in the societal you, do so to address that fact that their actions are the issue. Think what they want, but act upon it, and then society addresses those actions.


That was pretty rambling snd incoherant, hubie.

It sounds like you agree with me now. You agree deterrance isn't there; except for specialness, which frankly by having the level of hunt we still maintain we are actually making these folks more special.

I am not asking to declare them innocent and pardoned. I am saying it is a waste thst accomplishes nothing beyond revenge. If they weren't special and if you weren't emotional, you might see that too.
 
2013-07-28 07:04:56 PM

ReapTheChaos: So you're saying that people cant understand grief and loss unless they've had a loved one murdered? Death is death, whether it's murder, a heart attack or some kind of accident. I fail to see how they died really matters to the point I was making.


Your statement is proof enough that you don't understand.  Ask the loved one of a murder victim if they think "death is death, it's all the same".  I don't mean this as a slam, but you honestly don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-07-28 07:05:37 PM

Uncle Tractor: karmachameleon: Your 12-year-old son, 15-year-old daughter, and your wife of 20 years have all been found murdered in your home that's been robbed, stabbed to death when they interrupted the home intruder.  The police work the case hard, but nothing turns up.  A year passes.  Two years.  Are you over it?  Do you ask the police to call off the investigation?  Of course not.  5 years pass.  10.  At what point do you tell the police to put away the file and forget all about it?

At some point, the guy who murdered this hypothetical family has become a doddering old man who can't even wipe his own ass and barely remembers his own name. The guy who killed that family is long gone. All that's left is an old relic.

What to do ...?


Completely beside the point.
 
2013-07-28 07:07:44 PM

Misconduc: While they took orders and performed them without question and many did kill civilians, war is war.


Seriously?
 
2013-07-28 07:09:06 PM

Smackledorfer: It sounds like you agree with me now. You agree deterrance isn't there; except for specialness, which frankly by having the level of hunt we still maintain we are actually making these folks more special.

I am not asking to declare them innocent and pardoned. I am saying it is a waste thst accomplishes nothing beyond revenge. If they weren't special and if you weren't emotional, you might see that too.


It's not "coming around" to anything. It's been the point from the beginning. It's not about deterrence, or rather, it's about drawing a line in the sand, and saying, "No." It won't stop the "faithful" but it will declare what we hold important and keep that in the fore. As these folks die off the vine, they lose their heroes. They lose their uniqueness. At some point, we as a society have to declare not just what we are for, but also what we are against. What we will not hold to. As folks realize that they are further and further from the fold, oddly enough, that whole sociology of deviance thing does take hold.

Deviance is a natural part of our psychology. We reinforce that continually, albeit what we hold to, and what we find repugnant do often change over time, holding folks like this accountable, in a fashion that is legal and binding, and according to the rule of law, is part of that.

I disagree that it is a waste of time. It isn't about revenge, it is about defining what is important to us, as a society. This isn't a new wrinkle, it is parsing it down since you seem to have missed it the first few times. Implementation IS important in showing what we are for and what we are against, and if we use the rule of law, as opposed to simplifying things, we reinforce that rule of law, and what defines our mores.
 
2013-07-28 07:37:53 PM

karmachameleon: Misconduc: While they took orders and performed them without question and many did kill civilians, war is war.

Seriously?


Go wiki bombing of hamburg germany WW2 and get back to me.
 
2013-07-28 07:47:34 PM

Misconduc: Problem is Amos has no idea how many, Its not widely published how many soldiers get court marshaled, especially during war - one thing the germans were great at was keeping records and logs, problem is when the war was getting lost much of the paper work was destroyed to protect their asses.  I am a military historian and I deeply regret having a fanatical interest in this subject because its far more gruesome then I could imagine, no horror movie comes close to some of the things I've read.

But as you say, dead men tell no tales - exactly. Books don't get published by dead men, only those who live, there are extremely few accounts or eye witnesses to events such as this, in fact the problem of trying to piece the information together because the records were destroyed. Amos believes not one did, in fact I recount at least a dozen stories, but the problem with fact and fiction is trying to piece together the timeline, in many cases it can't be done.


So there are no accounts. Does that mean your earlier statement:

Misconduc: There are numerous accounts


Was, shall we say, inaccurate?

Look at  Simon Wiesenthalfor example, he's a nazi hunter that wrote quite a few books, until recently people compared the books and information he has, and found out he basically took partial information and filled in the blanks with his own lies and hearsay. Now nothing he says is credible, unfortunately I am not allowed to cite any of his work in anything I do, which makes researching that much more complicated.

You're NOT ALLOWED to cite his work? By whom, your employer? Because that's the only one who has any such authority over that.

So, again: there are no accounts of soldiers being punished for refusing, either formally or informally, despite thousands of diaries and interviews and records. Not a one. Not, "very few," not, "only a couple," zero, zilch, nada, niente, keine. In fact, were I to find such a record, I would consider it a bit of a holy grail. If you actually find one, please, share.
 
2013-07-28 07:52:28 PM

Misconduc: Amos Quito: vygramul: Misconduc: There are numerous accounts of soldiers being sent to the firing squad or reprimanded for not following orders.

Not a single one for refusing to take part in genocide. Not one.


Dead men tell no tales?

Problem is Amos has no idea how many, Its not widely published how many soldiers get court marshaled, especially during war - one thing the germans were great at was keeping records and logs, problem is when the war was getting lost much of the paper work was destroyed to protect their asses.  I am a military historian and I deeply regret having a fanatical interest in this subject because its far more gruesome then I could imagine, no horror movie comes close to some of the things I've read.

But as you say, dead men tell no tales - exactly. Books don't get published by dead men, only those who live, there are extremely few accounts or eye witnesses to events such as this, in fact the problem of trying to piece the information together because the records were destroyed. Amos believes not one did, in fact I recount at least a dozen stories, but the problem with fact and fiction is trying to piece together the timeline, in many cases it can't be done.



I think you may be confused about what "Amos believes".


Misconduc: Look at Simon Wiesenthalfor example, he's a nazi hunter that wrote quite a few books, until recently people compared the books and information he has, and found out he basically took partial information and filled in the blanks with his own lies and hearsay. Now nothing he says is credible, unfortunately I am not allowed to cite any of his work in anything I do, which makes researching that much more complicated.



Yeah, Wiesenthal was a fraud.

Of course, not many people would dare point to this fact out of fear of retribution - indeed, almost no one did until he died.

And of course he will retain his undeserved status as a god-like hero, in spite of this exposure.

And if you think that's bad, wait 'til Elie Wiesel dies.
 
2013-07-28 08:05:13 PM

vygramul: Misconduc: There are numerous accounts

Was, shall we say, inaccurate?

Look at Simon Wiesenthalfor example, he's a nazi hunter that wrote quite a few books, until recently people compared the books and information he has, and found out he basically took partial information and filled in the blanks with his own lies and hearsay. Now nothing he says is credible, unfortunately I am not allowed to cite any of his work in anything I do, which makes researching that much more complicated.

You're NOT ALLOWED to cite his work? By whom, your employer? Because that's the only one who has any such authority over that.



I would think that anyone who wishes their own work to be taken seriously would avoid citing the works of those that are known to have repeatedly lied and committed fraud for their own self aggrandizement:

For example:

"A United States Congressional Resolution lauded him as being "instrumental in the capture and conviction of more than 1,000 Nazi war criminals, including Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Nazi plan to annihilate European Jewry." But Isser Harel, the mastermind who headed Israel's Security Services at the time of Eichmann's capture, insisted that Wiesenthal played no role in the operation. In fact, according to Harel, Wiesenthal almost sabotaged the whole effort when he shared information that had been given to him in strictest confidence. While Harel's account of this episode in The House on Garibaldi Street may be somewhat self-serving, he is by no means the only one to denounce Wiesenthal as a self-promoter and even a fraud. Other critics have accused him of falsely taking credit for finding criminals and repeatedly inventing information unsupported by any data."


So yeah, Wiesenthal is not exactly the best source to cite.
 
2013-07-28 08:07:42 PM

hubiestubert: Smackledorfer: It sounds like you agree with me now. You agree deterrance isn't there; except for specialness, which frankly by having the level of hunt we still maintain we are actually making these folks more special.

I am not asking to declare them innocent and pardoned. I am saying it is a waste thst accomplishes nothing beyond revenge. If they weren't special and if you weren't emotional, you might see that too.

It's not "coming around" to anything. It's been the point from the beginning. It's not about deterrence, or rather, it's about drawing a line in the sand, and saying, "No." It won't stop the "faithful" but it will declare what we hold important and keep that in the fore. As these folks die off the vine, they lose their heroes. They lose their uniqueness. At some point, we as a society have to declare not just what we are for, but also what we are against. What we will not hold to. As folks realize that they are further and further from the fold, oddly enough, that whole sociology of deviance thing does take hold.

Deviance is a natural part of our psychology. We reinforce that continually, albeit what we hold to, and what we find repugnant do often change over time, holding folks like this accountable, in a fashion that is legal and binding, and according to the rule of law, is part of that.

I disagree that it is a waste of time. It isn't about revenge, it is about defining what is important to us, as a society. This isn't a new wrinkle, it is parsing it down since you seem to have missed it the first few times. Implementation IS important in showing what we are for and what we are against, and if we use the rule of law, as opposed to simplifying things, we reinforce that rule of law, and what defines our mores.


Just to be clear, now it isn't about deterrance, but purely 'we are a state of laws' stuff?

Because wasn't it about deterrance before when you were sending those racists a message? Now it isn't anymore?

So now you have no argument of why we should do it except 'it is the law, and therefore must be done, or else our social moores will crumble'?

If so then we can agree to disagree.
 
2013-07-28 08:31:14 PM

Smackledorfer: Just to be clear, now it isn't about deterrance, but purely 'we are a state of laws' stuff?

Because wasn't it about deterrance before when you were sending those racists a message? Now it isn't anymore?

So now you have no argument of why we should do it except 'it is the law, and therefore must be done, or else our social moores will crumble'?

If so then we can agree to disagree.


Mores change. It used to be acceptable in polite society to talk about the dark folks that you were going to lynch in the evening, right after supper and maybe a chaw of tobacco or a decent cigar. How did they change? How did things move on?

It is about sending a message, not to the fervent, but dismantling the apparatus within our societies that says, "Those folks over there are less than we are, so it's OK if we just gas them." Or shoot them. Or drag them across the desert on a tow hitch. Or chuck them off a bridge. What do we stand for, and will that message be gotten by the bulk of the populace? Will we state what we are for? In fairness, the bulk of the German populace wasn't exactly in the loop for the Holocaust. Oh, they figured it out, they could parse it well enough with the rhetoric, and they accepted it, even while denying that they could be culpable to such horrors. Only when confronted with it, without any dissembling, without any excuse, could they move on--which is why I have some issue with my mother's people with how they treat their own record during WWII and leading up to it. It isn't facing the truth, it's simply burying it to be forgotten.

Therein is the rub. To confront folks with the truth of their actions. Not with the "defense of the white race" nonsense, or the "making the world safe for the Aryan race" crap, but with the truth of it, and even years later, to force folks to confront the reality of the deeds done in their name. It's, as I've repeatedly said, about responsibility. We have that responsibility as well.

At this point, it's going to be a cyclical argument, as at this point, it's a near willful obtuseness, but yes, let's agree to disagree.
 
2013-07-28 09:34:24 PM

hubiestubert: Smackledorfer: Just to be clear, now it isn't about deterrance, but purely 'we are a state of laws' stuff?

Because wasn't it about deterrance before when you were sending those racists a message? Now it isn't anymore?

So now you have no argument of why we should do it except 'it is the law, and therefore must be done, or else our social moores will crumble'?

If so then we can agree to disagree.

Mores change. It used to be acceptable in polite society to talk about the dark folks that you were going to lynch in the evening, right after supper and maybe a chaw of tobacco or a decent cigar. How did they change? How did things move on?

It is about sending a message, not to the fervent, but dismantling the apparatus within our societies that says, "Those folks over there are less than we are, so it's OK if we just gas them." Or shoot them. Or drag them across the desert on a tow hitch. Or chuck them off a bridge. What do we stand for, and will that message be gotten by the bulk of the populace? Will we state what we are for? In fairness, the bulk of the German populace wasn't exactly in the loop for the Holocaust. Oh, they figured it out, they could parse it well enough with the rhetoric, and they accepted it, even while denying that they could be culpable to such horrors. Only when confronted with it, without any dissembling, without any excuse, could they move on--which is why I have some issue with my mother's people with how they treat their own record during WWII and leading up to it. It isn't facing the truth, it's simply burying it to be forgotten.

Therein is the rub. To confront folks with the truth of their actions. Not with the "defense of the white race" nonsense, or the "making the world safe for the Aryan race" crap, but with the truth of it, and even years later, to force folks to confront the reality of the deeds done in their name. It's, as I've repeatedly said, about responsibility. We have that responsibility as well.

At this point, it's going to be a cyclical argument, as at this point, it's a near willful obtuseness, but yes, let's agree to disagree.


Discussing something with you here feels like talking to a pothead, when they just go on and without ever getting to their point in anything remotely concise. When you sober up, read how wandering your posts here. You aren't getting more across by going off on tangents like you have ADD.
 
2013-07-28 09:51:54 PM

Misconduc: karmachameleon: Misconduc: While they took orders and performed them without question and many did kill civilians, war is war.

Seriously?

Go wiki bombing of hamburg germany WW2 and get back to me.


Doubling down on the dumb.  Be gone.
 
2013-07-29 02:22:42 AM

hubiestubert: For the folks who think that these are just poor old men...watch who comes out for their funerals...

In fairness, this goes for the monsters that my mother's people put in charge of things too. Genocide doesn't have a statute of limitations. It's not about revenge, it's about holding them responsible, and not making them creatures of pity. It's about making them face what they've done. Plain and simple. It won't reach some, but as a society and a circle of societies, how we face these horrors, drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Never again" is important. As important today as it was then. Ethnic cleansing is still an issue. It is still going on. And not just in Africa, not just in out of the way nations, but in Europe and the whole situation in Georgia, just recently, was based on folks who figured that if they just exterminated their neighbors, everything would be fine. Mind you, the Ossetians called on the Bolsheviks to help them NOT be exterminated way back, and again, after Georgia split, folks figured that it was still a good option.

Tell yourselves, O ye defenders of the poor downtrodden monsters, that it's been too long. Then look into the faces of those who survived. Look into the faces of their children, and their children's children, who would never have been if these pieces of kuso had their way.

We can ignore it, because it's more convenient. But sometimes, it's a matter of standing up and saying, "No. No more."


I haven't read much of this thread, but THIS. This to me is a commitment from society that says "you commit this sort of crime, or are accessory to it, you will be hunted down for the rest of your life. There is no statute of limitations, we don't care what good you've done since then, you have to pay the piper for such actions."  It's the best way to discourage such things.
 
2013-07-29 02:49:01 AM

karmachameleon: At some point, the guy who murdered this hypothetical family has become a doddering old man who can't even wipe his own ass and barely remembers his own name. The guy who killed that family is long gone. All that's left is an old relic.

What to do ...?

Completely beside the point.


But it's on topic for the thread; bringing people to court for crimes committed so long ago that the accused are on the verge of dying of old age and probably don't even know what's going on.

Another point on the old nazi thing: These people lived to see the Third Reich crumble, their leaders (most of them) dragged through court, whether en masse at Nuremberg or one by one ever since, their leaders and their ideology dragged through the gutter, everything they once stood for has become a symbol of human evil, and everything they did in the prime of their lives has turned to ashes. Not only that, but they've had to live their entire lives with the possibility of being captured and dragged of to Israel.
 
2013-07-29 02:51:26 AM

Fano: I haven't read much of this thread, but THIS. This to me is a commitment from society that says "you commit this sort of crime, or are accessory to it, you will be hunted down for the rest of your life. There is no statute of limitations, we don't care what good you've done since then, you have to pay the piper for such actions."  It's the best way to discourage such things.


And yet hardly a decade has gone by since without exactly that sort of thing taking place.
 
2013-07-29 04:06:17 AM

Uncle Tractor: karmachameleon: At some point, the guy who murdered this hypothetical family has become a doddering old man who can't even wipe his own ass and barely remembers his own name. The guy who killed that family is long gone. All that's left is an old relic.

What to do ...?

Completely beside the point.

But it's on topic for the thread; bringing people to court for crimes committed so long ago that the accused are on the verge of dying of old age and probably don't even know what's going on.

Another point on the old nazi thing: These people lived to see the Third Reich crumble, their leaders (most of them) dragged through court, whether en masse at Nuremberg or one by one ever since, their leaders and their ideology dragged through the gutter, everything they once stood for has become a symbol of human evil, and everything they did in the prime of their lives has turned to ashes. Not only that, but they've had to live their entire lives with the possibility of being captured and dragged of to Israel.


None of this matters.  None of it.  It's truly sad that you and others don't seem to get this.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report