ICTY exonerates Milosevic of all charges

[Hiro Protagonist]

It's always good when people say it's not about me and then go and talk about me in threads.

[Bartimaeus]

How can you still be this upset about a post that wasn't even about you, and for patently obvious reasons*? Show me where the bad man touched you.

 

 

*Namely, while you were the only one that had currently posted in that thread at the time that Hurlshot's post could be even sorta applied to (...and in reality, it couldn't, because you never mentioned blaming religion/Islam, so this should've been your first clue that his post wasn't replying to or specifically about you), the thread was one of many similar threads with similar subjects (i.e. violent attacks) over the past couple of months where what Hurlshot said perfectly applied as well, where there had been multiple people specifically blaming religion/Islam for violent attacks (when there was opportunity to do so, anyways).

Edited August 7, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Hiro Protagonist]

How can you still be this upset about a post that wasn't even about you, and for patently obvious reasons*? Show me where the bad man touched you.

 

 

*Namely, while you were the only one that had currently posted in that thread at the time that Hurlshot's post could be even sorta applied to (...and in reality, it couldn't, because you never mentioned blaming religion/Islam, so this should've been your first clue that his post wasn't replying to or specifically about you), the thread was one of many similar threads with similar subjects (i.e. violent attacks) over the past couple of months where what Hurlshot said perfectly applied as well, where there had been multiple people specifically blaming religion/Islam for violent attacks (when there was opportunity to do so, anyways).

 

I'm not upset at all. And how about linking to what you're talking about? 

 

I find it amusing that people are jumping into this thread and going on about me.

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[Hurlshort]

 

Is it about Hitler? He is more of a solvent than rubber or glue.

What about Caesar? Surely he is not as acidic as they make him seem.

 

 

You totally got me to look into the properties of salad dressing, bravo.  

[Drowsy Emperor]

You're all toxic, but as internet toxicity goes (see reddit, twitch), this is positively endearing.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[213374U]

Considering who was present at Wannsee conference, it's nigh impossible Hitler didn't know.

 

Agreed. But it's not about whether he knew, but whether it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

 

Speer wasn't at Wannsee and claimed he had left Posen before Himmler began his speeches. Even though he managed to avoid being hanged unlike most of his colleagues, turns out he did know about it after all, but it couldn't be proven at the time.

 

As for Milosevic, an acquittal for him doesn't mean that crimes committed during the war were 'for the most part propaganda'.

[Sarex]

As for Milosevic, an acquittal for him doesn't mean that crimes committed during the war were 'for the most part propaganda'.

 

Nor does it mean that they were not.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Being acquitted by a court instituted with the sole purpose of cementing the notion that you're guilty pretty much ensures that the whole process was a joke from the start.

 

The way the indictment was structured also suggests a fantastic degree of fishing (let's see what we can make stick!) by the prosecution:

 

The charges on which Milošević was indicted were: genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.   
 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Drowsy Emperor]

I mean, really? The only thing that's lacking on the list is inhumane treatment of animals and spitting on the sidewalk.

[Hiro Protagonist]

It does look like they're trying to cover every base.

 

Also, extermination can cover animals. They probably would have tried the animal angle at some stage. Presumably blaming it on the ordinance that was used during the war.

 

noun
noun: extermination; plural noun: exterminations

• killing, especially of a whole group of people or animals.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Hiro Protagonist

[BruceVC]

 

Being acquitted by a court instituted with the sole purpose of cementing the notion that you're guilty pretty much ensures that the whole process was a joke from the start.

 

The way the indictment was structured also suggests a fantastic degree of fishing (let's see what we can make stick!) by the prosecution:

 

The charges on which Milošević was indicted were: genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.   

 

 

What charges do you feel would be fair and reasonable?

[213374U]

Being acquitted by a court instituted with the sole purpose of cementing the notion that you're guilty pretty much ensures that the whole process was a joke from the start.

 

The way the indictment was structured also suggests a fantastic degree of fishing (let's see what we can make stick!) by the prosecution:

 

The charges on which Milošević was indicted were: genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.

 

A "court instituted with the sole purpose of cementing the notion that you're guilty"? Says you. Let me remind you that the court was created by resolution of the UNSC, of which both Russia and China are permanent members with veto power. If the "sole purpose" of the court had been to legitimize US aggression, as you've been repeating lately, it simply wouldn't exist. Russia has already exercised its power in this regard.

 

The issue here is that you're trying to use Milosevic's informal acquittal in Karadzic's -guilty- verdict as a basis for your denialist discourse that crimes in Yugoslavia were "for the most part, propaganda". That the killings, rapes and deportations happened isn't being disputed by anyone. It's Milosevic's participation that has been shown to be a political ploy.

 

And by the way, if you're going to talk about how the indictment was "structured", you may want to read (and quote from) the actual document, rather than copy-paste a lazy wiki summary.

[Blarghagh]

This thread went back on-topic like a champ but I'd still like to point out that we prefer people to discuss topics and not each other.

[BruceVC]

This thread went back on-topic like a champ but I'd still like to point out that we prefer people to discuss topics and not each other.

I hear you  but this discussion is directly about people  not accepting historical facts, it is a personal debate but how can this type of debate not be towards  each other?

 

Question on forum rules, if a person says the Holocaust didnt happen and a Jewish forum member became understandably annoyed and the two people started arguing who would be seen as in breach of the rules?

[Sarex]

The charges on which Milošević was indicted were: genocide; complicity in genocide; deportation; murder; persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; inhumane acts/forcible transfer; extermination; imprisonment; torture; willful killing; unlawful confinement; wilfully causing great suffering; unlawful deportation or transfer; extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; cruel treatment; plunder of public or private property; attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to historic monuments and institutions dedicated to education or religion; unlawful attacks on civilian objects.

A "court instituted with the sole purpose of cementing the notion that you're guilty"? Says you. Let me remind you that the court was created by resolution of the UNSC, of which both Russia and China are permanent members with veto power. If the "sole purpose" of the court had been to legitimize US aggression, as you've been repeating lately, it simply wouldn't exist. Russia has already exercised its power in this regard.

 

The issue here is that you're trying to use Milosevic's informal acquittal in Karadzic's -guilty- verdict as a basis for your denialist discourse that crimes in Yugoslavia were "for the most part, propaganda". That the killings, rapes and deportations happened isn't being disputed by anyone. It's Milosevic's participation that has been shown to be a political ploy.

 

And by the way, if you're going to talk about how the indictment was "structured", you may want to read (and quote from) the actual document, rather than copy-paste a lazy wiki summary.

 

At that point in time Russia didn't have much power to do anything (or the war wouldn't have happened) and China had no reason to involve it self.

 

It's obvious to any sane person that it's a kangaroo court that was put in place to legitimize the West's involvement in the war and the later NATO bombings. The fact that Naser Oric was acquitted and that operation "Storm" is to this day considered anything else but ethnic cleansing, shows it.

[Malcador]

Pot kettle black.

Well the guy he responded to was taking a rather bizarre interpretation of Gorgon's words, heh.

[Volourn]

"Question on forum rules, if a person says the Holocaust didnt happen and a Jewish forum member became understandably annoyed and the two people started arguing who would be seen as in breach of the rules?"

 

IMO, it would be whoever started attacking the other personally.

 

 

If Person A since Holcaust was fake and Person B responded by seeing person A is a pe3ice of crap who should be destroyed Perosn B is at fault. PCness though? Person A would likely be nazied out of existence.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

"Question on forum rules, if a person says the Holocaust didnt happen and a Jewish forum mem/ber became understandably annoyed and the two people started arguing who would be seen as in breach of the rules?"

 

IMO, it would be whoever started attacking the other personally.

 

 

If PA since Holcaust was fake and Person B repsodned by seeing person A is a pe3ice of crap who should be destroyed Perosn B is at fault. PCness though? Person A would likely be nazied out of existence.

Mmmm.....that doesnt seem fair?

 

If a person is provoked then surly its the person who provoked them that is to blame

[Volourn]

So.. if I call you a mean name.. you can murder me and it's my fault I was mean to you? COME ON.

 

Heck, the example is even worse because Person A didn't even say anything mean to Person B. He just gave his views on a subject.  Just because someone says something you disagree with doesn't give you the right to attack them. That's the logic that Islamic extremists and their apologists use. *puke*

Edited August 7, 2016 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

"Question on forum rules, if a person says the Holocaust didnt happen and a Jewish forum member became understandably annoyed and the two people started arguing who would be seen as in breach of the rules?"

 

IMO, it would be whoever started attacking the other personally.

 

 

If Person A since Holcaust was fake and Person B responded by seeing person A is a pe3ice of crap who should be destroyed Perosn B is at fault. PCness though? Person A would likely be nazied out of existence.

Wasn't Quistina saying things exactly like that?

[Blarghagh]

We're not here to police what people think. If they want to think the Holocaust didn't happen, it's up to them. We don't ban people for stupidity and conspiracy theories.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

At that point in time Russia didn't have much power to do anything (or the war wouldn't have happened) and China had no reason to involve it self.

 

It's obvious to any sane person that it's a kangaroo court that was put in place to legitimize the West's involvement in the war and the later NATO bombings. The fact that Naser Oric was acquitted and that operation "Storm" is to this day considered anything else but ethnic cleansing, shows it.

 

 

Russia had the power to do stuff, especially on the UN front where it could have stopped the ICTY's formation. Putin would not have approved it, but Yeltsin was in power in 1993 and he seems to have genuinely believed the west's PR and was perhaps hoping for a Marshall Plan equivalent. Well, he was a moron and a drunken sot after all, and much as I dislike speaking ill of the dead. By the time he found out that the US was- literally- willing to start WW3 over Yugoslavia (per Wesley Clark, who makes Yeltsin look positively enlightened, ordering James Blunt to attack Russian paratroopers in Kosovo. Thankfully he did try and order British troops to do it and they told him to **** off. What is it with American generals called Clark being idiotic glory hounds? Mark Clark was exactly the same going for Rome in WW2.) he was already on the way out. ICTY also can't really be said to have been created to legitimise the west's bombing since the bombing happened well after the court was established. It certainly has been used for PR and post facto justification though, and definitely handed out ludicrous and politicised decisions.

 

Still, it is definitely ironic how much those Yugoslav decisions have come back to haunt the west. Like much of Bill Clinton's presidency it looks far, far worse with the perspective of a couple of decades than it did at the time because you can see all the consequences. Putin himself and active Russian revanchism is largely a result of Yugoslavia. And the reputation of international tribunals is certainly appalling outside the western bubble.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Still, it is definitely ironic how much those Yugoslav decisions have come back to haunt the west. Like much of Bill Clinton's presidency it looks far, far worse with the perspective of a couple of decades than it did at the time because you can see all the consequences. Putin himself and active Russian revanchism is largely a result of Yugoslavia. And the reputation of international tribunals is certainly appalling outside the western bubble.

I'll give myself credit for my foresight back then. And btw, the British general who refused Clark's (aka Hilzilla's best friend and adviser) insane orders was Michael Jackson.

[Zoraptor]

Yep, Mike Jackson- and it certainly didn't hurt his career either since he ended up Chief of General Staff/ military head of the British army.

[Rostere]

It's always hilarious to read about ex-Yugoslavians mourning the division of Yugoslavia and then immediately lapsing into accusing all the other Yugoslavian ethnic groups of being genocidal murderers while their own side is, of course, completely innocent.

 

Sorry, but if there ever was a conspiracy to Balkanize Yugoslavia those people are the useful idiots who play their parts exactly as planned. Whether Milosevic is innocent or literally Hitler is a complete red herring to the real issue, which is the petty nationalism which made dividing Yugoslavia like kicking in an open door.

 

Throughout human history, we have first banded together families into tribes, allowing for a basic division of labour. Then, from tribes into nations, in which we act altruistically for an abstract group containing people we have never met. Then, from nations into modern countries which are united around commonly held universal ideals, independent of any particular group. Each level of advancement on this ladder has meant crushing the former primary means of identification in order to introduce a new model for social cohesion, which often means bloodshed - yesterday when determining borders of nations, today when we mix groups of people who do not share the commonly held universal ideals necessary to work together.

 

When people regress to tribalism in modern societies we get corruption and nepotism, when people regress to nationalism we get the situation in Yugoslavia.