Girl Scouts Of The USA Is An Organization, Too.

[Skull Pilot]

When I was a kid I used to trick or treat for UNICEF then keep the money

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.

To Tommy Tainant: You are twisted if you think anything the United Nations does is wonderful.

And if punishing Karadzic is your objective, I guess this went over your head:

Military tribunals work quite well when there is a winner and a loser. When the crimes are internal and there is no winning foreign military available to conduct military tribunals the people should judge the accused.

You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

To Tommy Tainant: Maybe in your country but not in mine.

Incidentally, can you support your opinion with an example?

Maajid Nawaz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an interesting character. He often cites the Bosnian atrocities as a motivator in radicalising him.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

 

[anotherlife]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

 

[Flanders]

When I was a kid I used to trick or treat for UNICEF then keep the money

To Skull Pilot: You were wise beyond your years.

However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action.

To Tommy Tainant: Please. Not that one again. I covered that nonsense in several messages on other boards as well as here. Here are some of my opinions and observations:

Nuremberg is the root of a serious problem few admit to. It was the Nuremberg Trials that proclaimed the concept of international crime —— quickly followed by non-existent International law —— meaning UN law. It was the Nuremberg Trials that gave the infant UN the on-going hope that all future war crimes trials would be judged by an International panel in The Hague.

Most Americans today do not know much about the Nuremberg Trials. Many Americans in the late 1940s saw the political implications of the Nuremberg Trials. They did not like what they saw. American Communists were the exceptions; they still go all gooey-eyed at the mention of the Nuremberg Trials.

Parenthetically, the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” is often attributed to Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson (1892 - 1954). Yet liberalism is hellbent on bringing about America’s self-destruction. Infanticide, euthanasia, population controls, death panels, forced sterilization, and doctor-assisted suicides, represent the very essence of institutional sadism. Every one of those progressive ideals has been gaining acceptance while wearing a cloak of compassion.

NOTE: Robert H. Jackson took a leave of absence from the Supreme Court in order to act as the chief PROSECUTOR in the best-known of the Nuremberg Trials.

The wartime alliance of America, Britain and the Soviet Union began to fall apart before WWII officially ended, but their leaders were united in one respect: The determination to arraign the principal Nazis for their crimes. The three powers agreed at a London conference in August 1945 to put the Nazis on trial. France, liberated in 1944, became the fourth member of a tribunal.

Each of the four powers appointed a senior judge, an alternate judge and a team of prosecutors. Nuremberg was chosen as the venue not only because it had a courthouse that had survived the war unscathed, but also because the Bavarian city had been the scene of Nazi party rallies and was associated with Hitler's race laws.

For the record, War Crimes Trials were conducted in Germany, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia shortly after WW II ended. Those trials were military tribunals. The most famous of those trials were held in Nuremberg. Collectively, they were called International Military Tribunals or IMT. Those trials were a big mistake.

A German court should have tried those Nazis who were not tried in the countries where the crimes were committed. Malleable Teutons wearing black robes could have been found who would have come to the same conclusions that non-German judges presiding over the Nuremberg Trials came to.

Even though the UN had nothing to do with the War Crimes Trials, the UN’s phoney judiciary headquartered in The Hague (the World Court, and the International Criminal Court) evolved into adjudicators of non-existent International law above and beyond treaties entered into by sovereign nations that are loosely defined as international law.

The punishment that was meted out to top Nazis at Nuremberg could have been doled out by the courts in those countries whose people had suffered at the hands of the Nazis. WW II Socialists wanted no part of that brand of justice.

Had Nazis been tried and condemned in national courts, Socialists rightly feared that top Communists would someday be tried by the people they were brutalizing in Soviet satellites. The precedent would have been established. That would never do. By extension, the UN’s judiciary —— WHERE THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY—— protects the top people accused of a war crime from being put to death. The UN is all about protecting ruling classes when they go bad.

Communist murderers are protected by the World Court. Whenever The Hague comes sucking around for more money you will never hear Congress say no because Communists like Stalin and Mao are supposed to get away with their crimes.

Nuremberg Principals is code talk for Socialist/Communist ideology.

Younger Americans might not be aware of the 1961 movie Judgement at Nuremberg; a film about four defendants who were judges in Nazi Germany. In spite of the star-studded cast, I would not recommend it to young movie buffs. J-at-N is an overrated stinker that is highly regarded by liberals.

The film was accurate in that the defendants were judged by a military tribunal with three American civilian judges presiding. In real life the United States got its authority from Control Council Law No. 10 which can accurately be described as an early attempt to establish “International law.” Wikipedia gives this brief explanation of No. 10:

Although it had been initially planned to hold more than just one international trial at the IMT, the growing differences between the victorious allies (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union) made this impossible. However, the Control Council Law No. 10, which the Allied Control Council had issued on December 20, 1945, empowered any of the occupying authorities to try suspected war criminals in their respective occupation zones. Based on this law, the U.S. authorities proceeded after the end of the initial Nuremberg Trial against the major war criminals to hold another twelve trials in Nuremberg. The judges in all these trials were American, and so were the prosecutors; the Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution was Brigadier General Telford Taylor. In the other occupation zones similar trials took place.

Subsequent Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

I never understood how an agreement reached by four WWII allies can be called law. Call it for what it is; the winners judging the losers, but don’t confuse it with the way most Americans view laws that are legislated in sovereign nations.

There’s nothing wrong with punishing those responsible for war crimes, but I always thought that they should be tried and punished by the victims in the country where the crimes took place —— not by an international body of any kind.

Dreaming and scheming

Socialist intellectuals have been working towards establishing International law since the second half of the 19th century. I believe that J-at-N was the first major propaganda attempt to sell it to the masses. J-at-N was shown on television’s Playhouse 90 before it was made into a theatrical movie.

After listening to some of the dialogue in the movie it is hard to miss the standard liberal garbage. This excerpt is a little taste of the plug for International law garbage that is sprinkled throughout the movie. Move the cursor to 6:16. Maximilian Schell starts speaking English at 6:57:

​

The movie’s attack on love of country is even more offensive than is glorifying International law. That is not to say I put in with the kind of patriotism the Nazis practiced. The not-so-subliminal message that I object to is that patriotism itself was portrayed as the villain; Nazi judges went along out of their love for Germany.

Hitler came to power on false patriotism. Barack Hussein Obama came to power by paying scant lip service to love of country. Frankly, he did not need patriotism as a stepping stone to power. Had he needed it he would have used it. Luckily for Hussein, and with a lot of help from the media, he avoided a patriotism pissing contest with his opponent John McCain.

After becoming president it became obvious that Hussein’s patriotism resides in a place other than defense of the nation, the Constitution, and America’s independence.

What’s next?

Everyone who is interested already knows everything they need to know about the mistakes that were made leading up to World War Two. Perhaps now those mistakes, and the military aspect of WWII, can be put in their proper places in order to get on with identifying, and correcting, the mistakes made in WWII’s aftermath. Promoting International law in order to implement the New World Order is one such mistake; the United Nations is another. Funding Socialism’s vast education industry propaganda apparatus is another.

I don’t know where to begin pinpointing the biggest mistake of all: The advance of Socialism after the guns fell silent.

Prior to WWII Socialism/Communism was stalled. FDR’s incremental Socialism was failing and would have been discarded altogether had the war not revived the economy. Pre-war production in 1939 and 1940 gave FDR a third term. America fighting a war gave him a fourth term in 1944.

The aftermath of WWII saw Socialists/Communists at home and abroad achieve more success than they ever thought possible prior to 1941. Much of that success began with taking credit for defeating fascism in Nazi Germany. Neither Hollywood propaganda machinery nor anyone else mentioned that Nazi murderers were executed by Communist butchers who should have been hanged alongside the Nazis.

The aftermath off WWII saw Socialism morph into liberalism. Liberalism, when it was called progressivism, was always fashionable to effete intellectuals. After 1945 it became a wise career choice for ambitious opportunists in publishing, in Hollywood, and in the young television industry.

Making sport of Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957) was a badge of honor to the new breed of liberals. Attacking McCarthy instead of disputing the things he was saying fooled many Americans into believing that liberals knew what they talking about. To this day, show biz libs attack the messenger but never the message.

Bottom line: The success of the current Administration’s Communist takeover of America’s government can be traced directly to the mistakes made in the aftermath of World War Two.

Even if you watched J-at-N in 1961 to be entertained without analyzing the dialogue you were led to the inevitable conclusion: The world must never let such things happen again. “The world” in Liberaldom naturally means a global government administered by the United Nations. Ergo, International law must be obeyed while national sovereignty must be abolished. That piece of propaganda has been doing its insidious dirty work for more than 50 years. That’s a long run for a mistake.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well absolutely none of that applies to the Karadzic case. Monsters need to be brought to account, whichever ideology they follow.
The fact that some dont does not invalidate those that do.

 

[anotherlife]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

But what do you tell the widows of the 20 million German civilians, that the leader of Czechoslovakia deported and killed in the SAME time as the Nuremburg trials were ongoing? I can't help but note that the same "justice" that the widow received with the verdict against Karadzic is in the same time a license for all future genocidal warlords. It had been the norm of history before the 20th century, that justice had a more scholarly meaning. The case you are describing is rather an evidence, that since the 20th century, justice is more only a sort of revenge. No wonder that only losers get it. Logically, that widow in the BBC exposee has just contributed to the start of the next genocide. Interestingly, among the nicknames of the various generations, the ww2 generation is called the "silent" generation. It would be nice to think that this is their name because they understand this problem.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

To see the Karadzic verdict as anything but wonderful is twisted.You can trace many of our current issues back to his genocide.

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

But what do you tell the widows of the 20 million German civilians, that the leader of Czechoslovakia deported and killed in the SAME time as the Nuremburg trials were ongoing? I can't help but note that the same "justice" that the widow received with the verdict against Karadzic is in the same time a license for all future genocidal warlords. It had been the norm of history before the 20th century, that justice had a more scholarly meaning. The case you are describing is rather an evidence, that since the 20th century, justice is more only a sort of revenge. No wonder that only losers get it. Logically, that widow in the BBC exposee has just contributed to the start of the next genocide. Interestingly, among the nicknames of the various generations, the ww2 generation is called the "silent" generation. It would be nice to think that this is their name because they understand this problem.

Well you have lost me there. 20 million German civilians ?

 

[anotherlife]

The problem with that is, that if we put away Karadzic, then why don't we put away those who cleansed away the German, the Hungarian, and the Italian? ... Oh because that is not history and never happened?

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

But what do you tell the widows of the 20 million German civilians, that the leader of Czechoslovakia deported and killed in the SAME time as the Nuremburg trials were ongoing? I can't help but note that the same "justice" that the widow received with the verdict against Karadzic is in the same time a license for all future genocidal warlords. It had been the norm of history before the 20th century, that justice had a more scholarly meaning. The case you are describing is rather an evidence, that since the 20th century, justice is more only a sort of revenge. No wonder that only losers get it. Logically, that widow in the BBC exposee has just contributed to the start of the next genocide. Interestingly, among the nicknames of the various generations, the ww2 generation is called the "silent" generation. It would be nice to think that this is their name because they understand this problem.

Well you have lost me there. 20 million German civilians ?

See? Exactly.

But let me give you a hint. Check out the Czech republic's count of German citizenry before 1946 and after 1946. Maybe you can check out the internationally supported Czechoslovakian leader Edward Bene. But I already know that you like most people will say that none of that matters, which is further proof to all my points above.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am not sure who you are referring to.

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

But what do you tell the widows of the 20 million German civilians, that the leader of Czechoslovakia deported and killed in the SAME time as the Nuremburg trials were ongoing? I can't help but note that the same "justice" that the widow received with the verdict against Karadzic is in the same time a license for all future genocidal warlords. It had been the norm of history before the 20th century, that justice had a more scholarly meaning. The case you are describing is rather an evidence, that since the 20th century, justice is more only a sort of revenge. No wonder that only losers get it. Logically, that widow in the BBC exposee has just contributed to the start of the next genocide. Interestingly, among the nicknames of the various generations, the ww2 generation is called the "silent" generation. It would be nice to think that this is their name because they understand this problem.

Well you have lost me there. 20 million German civilians ?

See? Exactly.

But let me give you a hint. Check out the Czech republic's count of German citizenry before 1946 and after 1946. Maybe you can check out the internationally supported Czechoslovakian leader Edward Bene. But I already know that you like most people will say that none of that matters, which is further proof to all my points above.

Oh lord.I just spent 10 minutes on this that I will never get back.

President Benes had 20m Germans murdered after the war ?
I cant find any proof of this whatsoever.

 

[anotherlife]

What I am trying to say is that using "legal" processes to put away perpetrators of genocide is a fraud. This is because for every genocidal war lord you take to court, all the others in history that were not taken to court, will serve as a license to start new genocides in the future. The fraud of creating war crime courts was intentional, and this exact thing is their purpose. Isn't is just convenient?

There is an argument that you will only try the losers but that is not necessarily the case.
It is unlikely that Blair and Bush will ever have to answer for their crimes.
However it is good to see these types face justice, just as Nuremburg was a symbolic action. The fact that some escape doesnt invalidate it.
The BBC interviewed a widow on the day he was sentenced. She lost her husband and both sons. She and her daughter were raped by karadzic thugs. She didnt see it as a fraud at all. .

But what do you tell the widows of the 20 million German civilians, that the leader of Czechoslovakia deported and killed in the SAME time as the Nuremburg trials were ongoing? I can't help but note that the same "justice" that the widow received with the verdict against Karadzic is in the same time a license for all future genocidal warlords. It had been the norm of history before the 20th century, that justice had a more scholarly meaning. The case you are describing is rather an evidence, that since the 20th century, justice is more only a sort of revenge. No wonder that only losers get it. Logically, that widow in the BBC exposee has just contributed to the start of the next genocide. Interestingly, among the nicknames of the various generations, the ww2 generation is called the "silent" generation. It would be nice to think that this is their name because they understand this problem.

Well you have lost me there. 20 million German civilians ?

See? Exactly.

But let me give you a hint. Check out the Czech republic's count of German citizenry before 1946 and after 1946. Maybe you can check out the internationally supported Czechoslovakian leader Edward Bene. But I already know that you like most people will say that none of that matters, which is further proof to all my points above.

Oh lord.I just spent 10 minutes on this that I will never get back.

President Benes had 20m Germans murdered after the war ?
I cant find any proof of this whatsoever.

Murdered or deported ... For the purpose of this problem, it makes no difference. In the case of Czechoslovakia, it is deportation by the way, but that is only semantics. And like I predicted, you have now proven my point.

 

[Flanders]

The Netherlands is the proving ground for worldwide Socialism’s Culture of Death. As I’ve said many times “Nazi Germany’s occupation was the last good thing to happen in Holland.”

I love being right when it shows where Socialism/Communism will go in this country:

This slippery slope is real.​

May 15, 2016
Dutch euthanasia industry now killing the mentally ill
By Rick Moran

Blog: Dutch euthanasia industry now killing the mentally ill​