# Convicted War Criminal Living On Saltspring Island!!!



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I saw this on the telly while eating breakfast.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/11/02/croatia-051102.html

What was really surprising were the people that they interviewed who seemed unable to comprehend that while he may seem like a nice guy he is actually someone who tortured and killed people. This is a beaut of a line:



> "I don't believe it, what happened back there, well, he was doing his job maybe? I don't know."


Evidently, this is one village idiot who slept through the class on why Canada sent her boys to fight the Nazis.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

i wonder if MacNutt knows this guy


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

gastonbuffet said:


> i wonder if MacNutt knows this guy



I wonder if MacNott is this guy...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> I wonder if MacNott is this guy...


That was neither funny or called for...

I've read your stuff, you're better than that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

kps said:


> That was neither funny or called for...
> 
> I've read your stuff, you're better than that.



Yeah probably, but I'm sporting for a verbal fight today... so I figured I'd be proactively antagonistic. Besides I've seen way too much of Harper on TV the past few days so I felt the need to abuse some conservatives.

PS. Besides someone was going to say it at some point. I might as well be the one singled out for persecution for having bad taste.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> too much of Harper


Ok, I'll accept that... LOL!


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

and it was funny, a little


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

There is a really nice federal prison on the island just outside of Victoria. They do excellent theatre

s.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

The village idiot's comment outlines a sad fact - too many are ignorant of the human cost of these criminals' activities. The generation that witnesses it all is dying out.

On the other hand there are plenty of modern tyrants to keep the pain alive.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

It was not called for and it was not funny, in any way, shape or form.

If you wake up in such a foul mood that this type of rhetoric passes as humour or some sort of self-gratifying, self-justifying vent directed at a particular group that happens to be out of your favour at that point in time, then either head back to bed or stay the hell off of public boards.

Not impressed.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Pelao said:


> The village idiot's comment outlines a sad fact - too many are ignorant of the human cost of these criminals' activities. The generation that witnesses it all is dying out.
> 
> On the other hand there are plenty of modern tyrants to keep the pain alive.


Wrong group of criminals. This guy is a Serbian, so the people that witnessed the atrocities are still around.

I think many people are ignorant of the number of people that died in Eastern Europe and Russia during WWII. Millions upon millions. It doesn't get much coverage in the west.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> Wrong group of criminals. This guy is a Serbian, so the people that witnessed the atrocities are still around.


I didn't express myself well - what I mean is, once the "witness" generation, and their children, pass on then the world's memory fades.

Agree with you about E Europe and Russia. Between Hitler and Stalin the death toll is almost beyond belief - and this leaves out the atricities post '45.

It's great to live in a country far removed from the liklihood of direct pain of this sort, but we have a responsibility to share the knowledge and be on guard.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> It was not called for and it was not funny, in any way, shape or form.
> 
> If you wake up in such a foul mood that this type of rhetoric passes as humour or some sort of self-gratifying, self-justifying vent directed at a particular group that happens to be out of your favour at that point in time, then either head back to bed or stay the hell off of public boards.
> 
> Not impressed.


Me neither. Uncalled for and rude.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> The generation that witnesses it all is dying out.


don't worry, there will be pleny of atrocities for present and future generations to witness.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

FeXL said:


> If you wake up in such a foul mood that this type of rhetoric passes as humour or some sort of self-gratifying, self-justifying vent directed at a particular group that happens to be out of your favour at that point in time, then either head back to bed or stay the hell off of public boards.


I suppose the same can be said about anyone slinging accusations and insults at the Liberals... but I doubt that you would feel so badly should they be the targets of such comments.



FeXL said:


> Not impressed.


Sorry I didn't impress you.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I suppose the same can be said about anyone slinging accusations and insults at the Liberals... but I doubt that you would feel so badly should they be the targets of such comments.


Not even remotely the same thing.

Just apologise and move on instead of trying to defend the comment.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Not even remotely the same thing.
> 
> Just apologise and move on instead of trying to defend the comment.


FeXL made a statement about not slinging...



> "self-gratifying, self-justifying vent directed at a particular group"


Unless MacNutt is a group then he is referring to my comment about spoiling for a fight with some conservatives... AND in that case if he is going to make that statement and direct it at me, then by all rights he should direct it at everyone (which includes those hurling insults at the Liberals). Language is a wonderful thing... 



I'll neither defend nor apologize for my original off colour statement, was it poor taste... sure, but it is not like the person I slung it at has the best taste in some of his comments either. I imagine that if MacNutt even read this thread that he would look at my comment and laugh it off as just another attempt by the sycophantic left to hurl comets at him from the Oort Cloud.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

I think humour, comedy, is innately human.
As such, one can make fun of anything. The key issue is contest. When , where, why, to who, at what/whose expense.
I don't think this comment qualifies to start tearing our clothes off and demand repent. There are more important things to worry about that a crack on an open forum. Sorry, but some of us are sinners. C'est la vie.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You mean I tore my clothes off for nothing? Who wants pictures? 

I understand the context point, and the relative lack of severity, but I still think in cases like this a simple apology is warranted. We all make mistakes, and some people sometimes apologise. That said, I'd prefer honest refusal to apologise than an insincere apology. Either way, it is no big deal, but it would be nice.

Now, where's my camera...


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Beej said:


> You mean I tore my clothes off for nothing? Who wants pictures?


Nah, I already have some. You should really clean your bathroom.

s.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You can never have enough Beej pictures. They're hauntingly beautiful in a frightening and queasy way. An enigma, wrapped in a paradox surrounded by a spare tire...pure art.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> da_jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose the same can be said about anyone slinging accusations and insults at the Liberals... but I doubt that you would feel so badly should they be the targets of such comments.
> ...


I second that. There is no ostensible justification for "joking" that someone you disagree with might be a war criminal. Your comment was offensive not only to your target, but also to victims of real war criminals and, I would venture, practically everyone who read the message.

We all say dumb things from time to time. The stand-up thing to do is withdraw the comment and apologize, without trying to justify or rationalize it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

nxnw said:


> We all say dumb things from time to time. The stand-up thing to do is withdraw the comment and apologize, without trying to justify or rationalize it.


Nope


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I second that. There is no ostensible justification for "joking" that someone you disagree with might be a war criminal. Your comment was offensive not only to your target, but also to victims of real war criminals and, I would venture, practically everyone who read the message.
> 
> We all say dumb things from time to time. The stand-up thing to do is withdraw the comment and apologize, without trying to justify or rationalize it.


Well said.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

The comment was likely not intended to be malicious or offensive, but rather to be good-hearted joke. If da jonesy didn't say it, someone else would have; so stop complaining.

Trust me on this.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

comprehab said:


> Trust me on this.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

The horror of Auschwitz is a stark challenge to many to try and understand not only how this overt act of genocide could have happened, but how we allow this sort of violence to continue to take place in various parts of our world even today. Let no one think that the Holocaust was a unique event in human history, in that while it exceeded other genocides (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) in the numbers of innocent persons murdered, it was not different in the basic intent underlying these crimes against humanity. I think that this is why it is important to take a moment and recall the reality that was Auschwitz to ensure that deep within our own humanity we do not forget the unforgettable. For in remembering, one is forced to integrate these many lives - these trapped souls - into one's consciousness. Auschwitz must become a place that reminds the world of not only “man’s inhumanity to man”, but also the dignity of people that makes each of us responsible for world peace. The philosopher George Santayana is quoted as stating that “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again”. To this end, we must all bear witness to what takes place within our world each day of our lives.

It is a custom in the Jewish religion to leave a pebble atop a gravestone when visiting a loved one's resting place. May this short passage serve as a pebble of remembrance for those who died in Auschwitz, as well as for those distant members of my own family who I never knew and who died in Dachau (http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-39). “Never Again”. Shalom, Paix, Peace.

Dr. Marc Glassman
Professor
Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

comprehab said:


> The comment was likely not intended to be malicious or offensive, but rather to be good-hearted joke.


When you composed this message, comprehab, did you see that selection of smilies on the right hand side of the page, the "emoticons"? Frankly, I dislike emoticons. However, in the absence of a facial expression to read or a tone of voice to interpret, they are a simple tool which can remove doubt as to intent. If a joke it was, then that little yellow one should have been included in the original posting, just to clarify a comment which could otherwise be taken as incredibly poor in taste, or worse.

Beej is correct-there is no comparison. 

FWIW, I would have defended anyone on this board (or anywhere else, for that matter) to which a comment like that was aimed.

On one thing you are probably correct, da_jonesy. Gerry will probably laugh his backside off. However, that does not lessen the offence to the rest of us for whom the personal slight is only part of the issue.

Dr.G., I was acquainted with a lady (recently deceased) who made it through the camps (Dachau, if memory serves. I'd have to refer to my copy of her autobiography to clarify. You've heard of Eva Brewster?). She was a very interesting individual.



comprehab said:


> If da jonesy didn't say it, someone else would have; so stop complaining.


It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
-Mark Twain


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

FeXL, none of my relatives made it through Dachau. 

That was one of Twain's best quotes.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I am sorry for your loss, sir.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I never knew them, but thanks for the thought, FeXL. My maternal great grandmother came to America from southern Germany in 1890, and my grandparents pn my father's side came to America in 1903.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I too feel your loss Dr. G.

I also cannot believe the insensitivity of comprehab. He and da_jonsey are just plain wrong. Very wrong indeed.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

comprehab said:


> The comment was likely not intended to be malicious or offensive, but rather to be good-hearted joke. If da jonesy didn't say it, someone else would have; so stop complaining.


If you accidentally hurt someone, with not the slightest ill will, wouldn't you say you were sorry?

You can have the purest of intentions and still be wrong. 

da_jonesy's comment was rude and not funny. If he intended to be hurtful, it would only make it worse.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you as well, Sinc.

Yes, the world is filled with enough hate that we should not be taking jabs at each other with senselenss and thoughtless comments.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Yes, the world is filled with enough hate that we should not be taking jabs at each other with senselenss and thoughtless comments.


Dr. G to your family's loss well of course my condolences... however in this case baiting someone into a debate is just that.

The interesting argument that this raises is of course who are those we define as war criminals. This is important... and not because Sinc or FeXL do not have any sense of humour or are so willing to claim the moral high ground when it is not them who are hurling tasteless comments. It is important because it is history and those who write history (usually the victors) who get to point a finger a say "war criminal".

The fact that Europeans in general are at fault for the decimation of most the Native peoples of North America is not in dispute, however do we claim the early European explorers and traders as war criminals or that they committed crimes against humanity... no not really (and certainly the general population does not see it that way). 

What about the Allied fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? All you have to do is watch "The Fog of War" to here one of the primary architects to those events admit that had they lost they could have been considered war criminals.

Take the current Iraq conflict... if that is not a criminal act then what is?

At what point are people responsible for criminal acts? Are all the Germans who permitted the holocaust guilty of war crimes for not doing more to prevent it? Is the Catholic church guilty for their silent consent? Is the 50% of America who voted for GW guilty? (BTW... if that is the case then doesn't MacNutt who also supports GW guilty? - probably not since he can't vote in the US)

Is genocide a laughing matter? No it is not, however I have seen many jokes on shows such as The Daily Show, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, etc... that may cross the line.

The point being... yes, stop the hate. Humour (as tasteless as it is and can be) however is sometimes just that. And if someone can or cannot take a joke well I suppose that is their issue and it is too bad because sometimes people have to just stop and have a laugh.

PS. FeXL, Sinc, MacNutt and Beej so if you feel so strongly that war crimes are bad (and we shouldn't call people names like "war criminal") why do you not criticize the US for consistently failing to support an International Court of Justice?

I await the answer from the righteous.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Thank you RTC. 

I see the correlation between war criminals from back in 1941 and the thread issue but the thread is titled convicted war criminal living on salt spring island. This would suggest discussion about opinions on what should happen to this man, opinions on the Croatian war, a smart-ass comment on the Sage of SSI, but not what has mainly been happening here.



IronMac said:


> Evidently, this is one village idiot who slept through the class on why Canada sent her boys to fight the Nazis.


Dr. G, there has been confusion from the get go in this thread. Maybe it was the word Nazi in the first post that set you off, but the war crimes we are talking about or rather should be talking about in this thread occurred in 1991, not 1941. They related to the Croation-Serbian war, not the Holocaust. Josip Budimcic was not even alive during WWll yet for some reason this thread was derailed by an article about Auschwitz (No disrespect Dr.G) and then "personal attacks against comprehab for no reason". 


FeXL said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by comprehab
> If da jonesy didn't say it, someone else would have; so stop complaining.
> 
> ...


Not really sure how my original, light-hearted netural comment warranted this personal attack, but what ever floats your boat.

As a conclusion to your combined successful (intentional?) thread derailment I will end with a quote by Mark Twain:
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Dr. G to your family's loss well of course my condolences... however in this case baiting someone into a debate is just that.
> 
> (blah, blah, blah about who is a war criminal, anyway, excuses, lame rationalization, etc)
> 
> I await the answer from the righteous.


What a pile of crap. Seriously, you say a rude, dumb thing about another member, and you can't be a mensch about it?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The interesting argument that this raises is of course who are those we define as war criminals.
> 
> PS. FeXL, Sinc, MacNutt and Beej so if you feel so strongly that war crimes are bad (and we shouldn't call people names like "war criminal") why do you not criticize the US for consistently failing to support an International Court of Justice?


Defining what a war criminal is would make an interesting discussion. Your logical connection to commenting on U.S. policy is as tenuous as the previous Liberal comment connection. Not even remotely the same thing. 

It was a tasteless joke directed at an individual, something many of us have been guilty of (probably), and warrants a simple apology. Sometimes a well-timed tasteless joke gets great laughs, sometimes not; it's difficult to predict and depends on a lot of things, including context. No big deal, nothing righteous, not difficult to do -- an apology is common courtesy in cases where it falls flat. Not sure why you're against apologising. So be it. Cheers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

nxnw said:


> What a pile of crap. Seriously, you say a rude, dumb thing about another member, and you can't be a mensch about it?


Sorry nxnw... looks like I left out of the "FeXL, Sinc, MacNutt and Beej" list.

Feel free to step up to the plate and answer the... _ "if you feel so strongly that war crimes are bad (and we shouldn't call people names like "war criminal") why do you not criticize the US for consistently failing to support an International Court of Justice?" _ question, if you feel up to it.

Your moral high ground is convenient to point fingers at those engaging in tasteless humour, how about trying to answer a real question?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Defining what a war criminal is would make an interesting discussion. Your logical connection to commenting on U.S. policy is as tenuous as the previous Liberal comment connection. Not even remotely the same thing.


I make an off colour joke that MacNutt might be the "war criminal" in the CBC article and every right wing supporter on this board (well certainly the most vocal ones) jumps down my throat. That was of course totally expected and pretty much why I said it in the first place.

But here is the interesting thing... I pose a question about what constitutes a war criminal... and whoops? the jig is up. Let us not venture into the realm of intellectual debate when a name has been called and the fingers pointed. I am somewhat surprised that no one picked up on my question/comment "that should supporters of war criminals be considered as guilty as well?".

I'm having issue with your comment "Your logical connection to commenting on U.S. policy is as tenuous as the previous Liberal comment connection." Which is it? Logical or tenuous?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Logical and tenuous are not exclusive concepts.

What do you mean by 'right wing supporter'? Economic, fiscal, social, foreign policy, all, some, any?

I guess there's no point in discussing the apology anymore. It's like two unrelated conversations. I made my case and others made theirs, but in the end your respect is your concern. Again: so be it.

As for the intellectual debate, I'll gladly get into it and was in no way avoiding it, just trying to resolve a previous issue. 

I don't think supporters (different than collaborators) should be considered guilty as well. That would set up all sorts of problems, is far too subjective and, in the end, doesn't seem useful to me.

On the U.S. topic, a reason the U.S. didn't sign on to a lot of international legal institutions (decision I don't like) is because there are a lot of people out there who want to charge various U.S. leaders (which I also don't like). In other words, I understand why they did it, but I still don't like their decision. I don't fall into the 'Bush is a war criminal' camp, or others like it.

The same sort of treatment happens to Israel in the UN...broad and, in my opinion, highly innaccurate moral equalization supported by some people's inherent distaste and/or hatred for the nation.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> I don't think supporters (different than collaborators) should be considered guilty as well. That would set up all sorts of problems, is far too subjective and, in the end, doesn't seem useful to me.


What does the law say about this issue. If I witness a man drowning and do nothing... I don't try and rescue him, I don't throw him a rope, I don't alert anyone to the situation. And what if I make a commotion to draw peoples attention away from the drowning person?

How would I be treated in a court of law. 

I would be guilty of criminal negligence wouldn't I?

How is that any different than the churches silent consent of the holocaust or of the German population at the time of the holocaust?

Of course in the case of the German population the more accurate analogy would be the above example, however someone was holding a gun to my head, so the argument could be made that their consent was under duress. 



Beej said:


> On the U.S. topic, a reason the U.S. didn't sign on to a lot of international legal institutions (decision I don't like) is because there are a lot of people out there who want to charge various U.S. leaders (which I also don't like). In other words, I understand why they did it, but I still don't like their decision. I don't fall into the 'Bush is a war criminal' camp, or others like it.


But here's the point... if you aren't guilty, then you have nothing to fear. I think the quote is that "the truth shall set you free"? There can only be two decision made by their actions... 

#1 They know they are guilty of war crimes and are taking the fifth (in a sense) prior to even going to court.

#2 They are above the law.



Beej said:


> The same sort of treatment happens to Israel in the UN...broad and, in my opinion, highly innaccurate moral equalization supported by some people's inherent distaste and/or hatred for the nation.


But as Vandave has stated in another thread... war crimes are "black and white" either you are guilty of them or not. If whatever nation is being accused why would they not want to prove their innocence?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> But here's the point... if you aren't guilty, then you have nothing to fear. I think the quote is that "the truth shall set you free"? There can only be two decision made by their actions...
> 
> #1 They know they are guilty of war crimes and are taking the fifth (in a sense) prior to even going to court.
> 
> #2 They are above the law.


Not the only two options. For one, that characterization assumes good judgement (note the controversy over what type of judges to pick in the U.S. and Canada) on the court's part. 

Also, these are national leaders and their time would be sucked up by every wing-nut with an axe to grind. In the end, yes they would be innocent, but the wasted time would be phenomenal...like the whole Clinton thing. How much more could he have accomplished without it? 

The U.S. joining could essentially put U.S. leader's time in the hands of extremists from all stripes or take them off the world stage (something I hope even anti-Americans realize is not the best option). But, like I said, I didn't like their decision, I just understand some of the reasoning.

The first part of your post begins to identify the complexity and subjectivity of the discussion. Does war criminal include 'not a good semaritan'? These types of laws aren't even consistent in the OECD for much simpler matters. How active does the support have to be? Is voting active enough? How many degrees of separation from the deaths? I think the 'supporters as war criminals' is a red herring. The current court seems to be a reasonable approach, but I'm not a legal expert, and this is highly complex.

Side note: I am actually interested in your definition of 'right wing supporter'. Please expand.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

First of all, responding to your whining that you are being picked on by "right wing supporters", I am hardly right wing and I rarely agree with MacNutt's political views. It seems to me that the objections to your comment came from all over the political spectrum. 

If someone had called you a pedophile, for instance, I suspect the same people would have made the same objections.


da_jonesy said:


> ...Feel free to step up to the plate and answer the... _ "if you feel so strongly that war crimes are bad (and we shouldn't call people names like "war criminal") why do you not criticize the US for consistently failing to support an International Court of Justice?" _ question, if you feel up to it.
> 
> Your moral high ground is convenient to point fingers at those engaging in tasteless humour, how about trying to answer a real question?


You made an unprovoked, gratuitously offensive remark about someone and and it would have shown class and character to apologize early enough to demonstrate sincerity. Instead of doing the right thing, you challenge me and others on our views on war crimes tribunals? 

Parenthetically, I had no consciousness or perspective on your political views or character before yesterday. Your opinions, especially on difficult and complex moral issues, don't interest me much at this point, due to the impression you have made in the interim.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Hrmm...given the evident energy potential exhibited by the more vocal posters on this thread, I'm tempted to lasso them...build a giant mouse wheel and use them to power a small city.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Not the only two options. For one, that characterization assumes good judgement (note the controversy over what type of judges to pick in the U.S. and Canada) on the court's part.
> 
> Also, these are national leaders and their time would be sucked up by every wing-nut with an axe to grind. In the end, yes they would be innocent, but the wasted time would be phenomenal...like the whole Clinton thing. How much more could he have accomplished without it?
> 
> The U.S. joining could essentially put U.S. leader's time in the hands of extremists from all stripes or take them off the world stage (something I hope even anti-Americans realize is not the best option). But, like I said, I didn't like their decision, I just understand some of the reasoning.


But that still doesn't fly, it only further illustrates their position that they are above the law. How would we feel if individuals in this society got to pick when, where and if they go to court. What sort of precedent does that set in society? That the rich and powerful can do what they please, when they please.



Beej said:


> The first part of your post begins to identify the complexity and subjectivity of the discussion. Does war criminal include 'not a good semaritan'? These types of laws aren't even consistent in the OECD for much simpler matters. How active does the support have to be? Is voting active enough? How many degrees of separation from the deaths? I think the 'supporters as war criminals' is a red herring. The current court seems to be a reasonable approach, but I'm not a legal expert, and this is highly complex.


Exactly my point it is highly complex and certainly not black and white as some others would like argument. It very much depends on what side you are on. 

Case in point, China. China invades Tibet and causes unspeakable social carnage and by some reports killed over a million people (although the number is probably closer to 300 000). Rather than being singled out for persecution, China gets "most favoured nation" trading status.



Beej said:


> Side note: I am actually interested in your definition of 'right wing supporter'. Please expand.


I think the definition from Wikipedia covers it nicely...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_wing


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Hrmm...given the evident energy potential exhibited by the more vocal posters on this thread, I'm tempted to lasso them...build a giant mouse wheel and use them to power a small city.


Do I get pellets and huge inverted water bottle? If so sign me up.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

nxnw said:


> First of all, responding to your whining that you are being picked on by "right wing supporters",
> 
> ... yawn ...
> 
> Your opinions, especially on difficult and complex moral issues, don't interest me much at this point, due to the impression you have made in the interim.


Um, yeah. 

-begin sarcasm-

Well it's been nice chatting with you.

-end sarcasm-


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> ... however in this case baiting someone into a debate is just that.


So this, all of this, 5 pages of thrust and parry, is because you wanted to suck some right-winger into debating US foreign policy? 

A lesser man would simply have started a new post. As a mere mortal, with only a basal comprehension of the complexities of life, I must confess I failed this assignment, miserably.

I am flabbergasted. I have fenced with some of the best over the years (and, occasionally won) but I never, ever saw this coming. You have bested me, da_jonesey. I concede. Well done. Touché!

What a craftsman, a true wordsmith, nay, a veritable artiste! The Bard himself pales by comparison.

I apologize for ever misconstruing anything you have ever posted as mere offal.

I abase myself before the master. You own me, da_jonesey. I am mere clay in your hands. And nary the flicker of an eyelid to indicate weakness. The timing, the control, the brilliance of your rhetoric is truly stunning. 

The way you were able to innocently draw support from your seemingly unknowing audience-astounding.

Pure poetry. The manner in which you orchestrated this opus will be recited for generations. This tale should be forged in steel and hung from the highest bell tower.

A true coup de grâce!

And, as I have absolutely no desire to embarrass myself before you again, I quietly and humbly exit the room, bowing, hat in hand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> But that still doesn't fly, it only further illustrates their position that they are above the law. How would we feel if individuals in this society got to pick when, where and if they go to court. What sort of precedent does that set in society? That the rich and powerful can do what they please, when they please.
> 
> Exactly my point it is highly complex and certainly not black and white as some others would like argument. It very much depends on what side you are on.


The country-to-world analogy only goes so far when your nation's values and laws are very different from the 'world's' (unified concept not yet demonstrated). Again, how do the judges get chosen? Security council? Population share? 1 vote per country?

The precedent it sets is that they aren't ready to trust the world yet. They may trust individual countries and work with them, but there are a lot they don't trust. I can understand this stance, but I don't agree with it. Not sure how you feel.

I interpreted Vandave's comment as referring to a specific case being black and white but you have referred to it again and again as his opinion on the topic in general. If we all made the same sort of frequent presumptive leaps, most posts would be used up just clarifying the innaccuracy of the leaps.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> If we all made the same sort of frequent presumptive leaps, most posts would be used up just clarifying the innaccuracy of the leaps.


And perhaps poor taste in humour is just that, as opposed to presumptive leaps in questioning ones character.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I think many people are ignorant of the number of people that died in Eastern Europe and Russia during WWII. Millions upon millions. It doesn't get much coverage in the west.


What do you mean not much coverage? 
Don't forget that Stalin killed off many of his own people before during and after the war....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> And perhaps poor taste in humour is just that, as opposed to presumptive leaps in questioning ones character.


Oh dear, this again. Sure, perhaps. Perhaps it's all the same thing too. Perhaps any comparison is valid. Perhaps it's very different. Perhaps some of the specific comments raised were not addressed, perhaps it was a grand plan to initiate debate, perhaps...

Now, back to my clothing situation.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Now, back to my clothing situation.



Kudos... you made me smile.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> I make an off colour joke that MacNutt might be the "war criminal" in the CBC article and every right wing supporter on this board (well certainly the most vocal ones) jumps down my throat. That was of course totally expected and pretty much why I said it in the first place.


Yes it was in bad taste but when confronted by something that makes people uncomfortable, we often turn to humour. The worst the horror, the more "off-colour" the jokes maybe. 



da_jonesy said:


> But here is the interesting thing... I pose a question about what constitutes a war criminal... and whoops? the jig is up. Let us not venture into the realm of intellectual debate when a name has been called and the fingers pointed. I am somewhat surprised that no one picked up on my question/comment "that should supporters of war criminals be considered as guilty as well?".


"History is written by the victors"
Propaganda becomes history to the victors. One just has to look at the history of the creation of the State of Israel (don't get your shackles up Dr. G - we can debate this at a later date).


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

All this discussion and no postings from MacNutt.



s.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

mr.steevo said:


> All this discussion and no postings from MacNutt.
> 
> 
> 
> s.


I actually think better of him for it. I assume he is chuckling at the barbs being thrown back and forth... He is just letting his minions do his dirty work.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Somebody has to stand up against the forces of mediocrity and the culture of entitlement.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

*Hitler can be funny...*

Nobody really makes good jokes about Hitler anymore, except Mel Brooks of course - "Springtime for Hitler" anyone? To make a joke zing about a war criminal, a genocidal megalomaniac, you must be a member of the victim's community. You must validate your position of (comedic and moral) superiority by demonstrating you were at one time on the receiving end of the abuse. 
To do otherwise will always leave a bad taste. 

But let's look a quote from the Nutter himself:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=289871&postcount=18
---
...I'd save George W.

He's on exactly the right track in the middle east. No matter WHAT any of you might want to imagine or think. Saving him would change history. For the better!

And...personally...I'd LIKE to be a footnote on Mt Rushmore!

Which is where pivotal Presidents like both Bushes and Reagan will end up being immortalised in some future time...
---

If you support a genocidal megalomaniac (either A. Hitler or G. Bush) you are fair game for any and all the ridicule you deserve. If you support the slaughter of tens of thousands of children, women and men then these comparisons make perfect sense to me. I hope the Bushes and Reagan are immortalized in the world court for all the people they've killed. And I challenge all the people who feel that good taste trumps reality to go ahead and laugh at this:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraq032403.jpg


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

G. Bush being a genocidal megalomaniac is far from reality. Some people may believe it, but it's far from agreed upon to nearly the same extent as Hitler. Makes for good simple political statements to kill any real discussion though.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

So how many people do you or your nation have to kill to be a genocidal maniac? 

Kill one person and you're a murderer. 
Kill 10 and you're a serial killer. 
Kill 2000 of your own troops and you're the leader of the free world.
Instigate, participate, and perpetuate the killing of 100,000+ people and you're a... 

genocidal - he deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

maniac - a person exhibiting extreme symptoms of wild behavior, esp. when violent and dangerous.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Must be just me who doesn't agree with you. 

Kill 2000 of your own troops? So pretty much any leader who has gone in to a large-scale war has done that. As for how you label and allocate guilt for the rest, I don't see the world as that simple. Bush did all that? No, but six-degrees of separation rules and judiciously letting others off the hook may get you there. There's no more credible perspective than what you've laid out? Of course there is. Again, nice political lingo. 

There are people out there who really think that Bush is equally bad as Kim Jong Il. They're welcome to rant and rave all they want, but shouldn't expect anyone to take them seriously, other than fellow ranters. I'm not saying you think this way, I'm just using an extreme example of some of the anti-American and anti-Bush insanity out there. I don't like Bush (capital B only  ) and I think he is bad for the world and the U.S., but I don't use that as an excuse for baseless hatred or to marginalize anyone who voted for or agrees with most of his policies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Must be just me who doesn't agree with you.


Looks mostly that way, no? 


Did you find your clothes


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

No, but I have many paper towels. Those pictures I'll charge for. Don't worry, the funds won't go to the Republicans.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

On a more serious note, how many people here think Bush is a war criminal and/or guilty of genocide? I'd start a poll, but would rather see how a more casual and open yes/no set of posts works out. I'm especially interested in hearing from the quieter voices here, because right now I'm probably getting loud advocates and silence. 

I vote no.

Note, I'm not asking if he's bad, or wrong, or a liar. War criminal and/or guilty of genocide, in your own mind (with your own internal definitions).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

War criminal, yes in the sense that he started an illegal war with Iraq. He is responsible for the torture of prisoners and by resent accounts permitting torture camps. He has mocked the Geneva convention - War criminal without any hesitation.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Beej said:


> On a more serious note, how many people here think Bush is a war criminal and/or guilty of genocide? I'd start a poll, but would rather see how a more casual and open yes/no set of posts works out. I'm especially interested in hearing from the quieter voices here, because right now I'm probably getting loud advocates and silence.


I would vote yes on the war crimes, Bush initially went to war because he and his lap dogs did not think that the UN wasn't doing a good job of finding Iraq's WMD's so when they came to the same conclusion as the UN they re-invented there story that they were looking for Iraq-AlQeda links and when none were found we get what we have today the truth. 

The truth is that US forces killed around 30000 civilians in Iraq so far if that isn't a war crime then what is?

Laterz


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think that I might regret getting in to this discussion, but here goes ...

Yes, I think G. W. Bush is a war criminal. But, I think that there are degrees of war criminals and I don't think he's as bad as Stalin or Hitler. He is guilty of breaking some of the laws of war that have been agreed upon internationally. Treatment of prisoners and use of torture is one big area that indicates Bush, as the one ultimately responsible for the Iraq War, is a war criminal. Another more fuzzy area is the declaration of an aggressive war. We all know now, and many of us were saying before the war, that Bush wanted the war and created fictional facts to sell his nation on engaging in it. He is also a criminal against his own country's laws in that regard.

I believe that he has not been as bad as some of the more flagrant war criminals simply because he doesn't have the same degree of unchecked power. My sense is that he has no regard for democracy whatever. His self-professed morality and Christian values are just public relations BS.

I believe that many leaders who go to war have been war criminals to greater and lesser degrees. Any leader who doesn't recognize that war is the bluntest of all blunt instruments and always results in the unintended and unjust deaths of civilians and even one's own soldiers and who is willing to use that instrument for any reason other than pure defence has the blood of innocents on his hands. I would vote to sent Bush to jail along with many other bastards our modern world has spawned.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> On a more serious note, how many people here think Bush is a war criminal and/or guilty of genocide? I'd start a poll, but would rather see how a more casual and open yes/no set of posts works out. I'm especially interested in hearing from the quieter voices here, because right now I'm probably getting loud advocates and silence.
> 
> I vote no.
> 
> Note, I'm not asking if he's bad, or wrong, or a liar. War criminal and/or guilty of genocide, in your own mind (with your own internal definitions).


Sorry just thought of this expansion later...

Same question, but for the leaders of the 'coalition of the willing' participants.
Blair, Koizumi, etc... Are they also war criminals and/or guilty of genocide?

List I found on the internet, may be accurate. BBC quoted, US sourced:

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Source: US State Department

[editted for 1 typo and clarification]

I'd rather not get into a debate about the credibility of the lesser players (bought off with foreign aid?) do other major leaders of democracies get the same vote?...same question. 

Dr. G, very interested in hearing your vote and thoughts. I'm pretty sure we disagree on much, but your voice is generally well-reasoned. Much like Salutin at the Globe and Mail. I don't agree with half (or more) of what he says, but he puts it well and in reasonable terms most of the time.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What do you mean not much coverage?
> Don't forget that Stalin killed off many of his own people before during and after the war....


By coverage, I mean it isn't discussed as much as the Holocost, although in numbers they were fairly similar. I don't think the average Canadian or American really knows much about what happened in Eastern Europe. Whereas with the Holocost, it's general knowledge.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

K_OS said:


> The truth is that US forces killed around 30000 civilians in Iraq so far if that isn't a war crime then what is?
> 
> Laterz


But the loss of civilian life was not a deliberate homocidal act. They are unfortunate casualties of war. The US spends billions per year to minimize collateral damage. If their goal was to kill civilians, they would be carpet and firebombing Iraq.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kind of a useless exercise without a constituted international court.
That's where the effort should be concentrated. 

It's all about sovereignty and certainly Saddam will be pulling that defence out his rabbit hat.

The damage to the US credibility in the world is almost defies calculation.
Bush's attack on Iraq was a like a big earthquake in geopolitical terms and the terrain will never be the same in the future.

Many fault lines were fractured and I think the world instead of perhaps taking a course towards greater unified efforts will now move to power blocs. For good or ill in the long term who knows but that attack was a tipping point in my mind.

Humpty Dumpty comes to mind........all the king's horses and all the king's men....et al.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> War criminal and/or guilty of genocide, in your own mind (with your own internal definitions).


I looked at Wikipedia for some external definitions and found ...


> Conduct of warfare
> 
> Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> But the loss of civilian life was not a deliberate homocidal act. They are unfortunate casualties of war.


Killing in self defence is generally regarded as an acceptable option. We know that the Iraq war was not self defence, so then it's homicide.


Beej said:


> Same question, but for the leaders of the 'coalition of the willing' participants.
> Blair, Koizumi, etc... Are they also war criminals and/or guilty of genocide?
> 
> List I found on the internet, may be accurate. BBC quoted, US sourced:
> ...


Afghanistan, _- guilty,_ Albania, _- guilty,_ Australia, _- guilty,_ Azerbaijan, _- guilty,_ Bulgaria, _- guilty,_ Colombia, _- guilty,_ the Czech Republic, _- guilty,_ Denmark, _- guilty,_ El Salvador, _- guilty,_ Eritrea, _- guilty,_ Estonia, _- guilty,_ Ethiopia, _- guilty,_ Georgia, _- - guilty, Hungary, - guilty, Italy, - guilty, Japan, - guilty, South Korea, - guilty, Latvia, - guilty, Lithuania, - guilty, Macedonia, - guilty, the Netherlands, - guilty, Nicaragua, - guilty, the Philippines, - guilty, Poland, - guilty, Romania, - guilty, Slovakia, - guilty, Spain, - guilty, Turkey, - guilty, United Kingdom - guilty, - guilty, - guilty, and Uzbekistan.

Maybe not as guilty as the ringleader, but accessories nonetheless._


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Noam Chomsky - from It's Imperialism, Stupid


> Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region." If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the heart of the world's major energy supplies, that will enhance significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30 years: US-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked to South and Southeast Asia economies.


The more I read and watch tv from allover the planet the more I believe this to be the true reason why the US invaded Iraq.

Laterz


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I met this guy a couple of times over the past few years. I thought he was a bit of a knob.

Plus, he had NO idea how to clean a gun, or how to dispose of a recently slain human body. Trust me on this.

Poser.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I met this guy a couple of times over the past few years. I thought he was a bit of a knob.
> 
> Plus, he had NO idea how to clean a gun, or how to dispose of a recently slain human body. Trust me on this.
> 
> Poser.


Gerry, you usually have a good sense of humor, but that post was marginally uncool. 
But then again, I'm sucking badly in my hockey pool this week, so maybe I'm a wee bit cranky. Maybe.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gwillikers said:


> Gerry, you usually have a good sense of humor, but that post was marginally uncool.
> But then again, I'm sucking badly in my hockey pool this week, so maybe I'm a wee bit cranky. Maybe.


Marginally? I would say given the attitude of the author since that foul post, it would appear it was a cold and deliberate act.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Plus, he had NO idea how to clean a gun, or how to dispose of a recently slain human body. Trust me on this.
> 
> Poser.


So now that the door is open, can we insinuate that MacNutt maybe a war criminal?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Kind of a useless exercise without a constituted international court.
> That's where the effort should be concentrated.


Of which the US said it would not recognize - the US is a rogue country. I don't even know why they even bother with the UN....



MacDoc said:


> The damage to the US credibility in the world is almost defies calculation.
> Bush's attack on Iraq was a like a big earthquake in geopolitical terms and the terrain will never be the same in the future.
> 
> Many fault lines were fractured and I think the world instead of perhaps taking a course towards greater unified efforts will now move to power blocs. For good or ill in the long term who knows but that attack was a tipping point in my mind.


Let's not mince words - this is the kind of division we saw before WW1 and WW2... What can be next? From Orwell to Dwyer this is a predicted course....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Where is that "tongue in cheek" emoticon when I really NEED it??


----------

