[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41561869]Those things alone killed a couple hundred thousand people, most of them civilians. War is a fucked up thing, terrible shit happens. the Nazi's may have been the worst of the bunch. But they got what was coming to them a long long time ago. To hunt down the few dying remnants of a long dead organization is petty and stupid.[/QUOTE]
So as long as some of the people get caught, it's okay if the rest get away?
[QUOTE=scout1;41561883]So as long as some of the people get caught, it's okay if the rest get away?[/QUOTE]
You're ignoring the rest of my post. We got nearly all of them. This happened nearly a century ago, and they've had to hide their entire lives. Stop being so damn petty and just let them finish dying. What "justice" will you accomplish by capturing them? What, put them into a jail for a year or two til they die? Execute them as they are about to die?
The Nazi's were dealt with a long time ago.
How about we move on and stop concerning ourselves with little people who present no threat to anyone or anything.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41561909]You're ignoring the rest of my post. We got nearly all of them. This happened nearly a century ago, and they've had to hide their entire lives. Stop being so damn petty and just let them finish dying. What "justice" will you accomplish by capturing them? What, put them into a jail for a year or two til they die? Execute them as they are about to die?
The Nazi's were dealt with a long time ago.
How about we move on and stop concerning ourselves with little people who present no threat to anyone or anything.[/QUOTE]
So give me your numbers. When does my genocide become acceptable. Do I have to wait 10 years before I'm a free man? 20? 30? At what point do I just get off scot free, regardless of the murders I perpetuated? And if half my buddies get caught, do I get out? 60%? 70%?
Tell me at what point mass murder becomes acceptable.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41561869]Justice was accomplished when we won WW2.
Honestly, both sides did some pretty fucked up things. I don't see you chastising the US for dropping nuclear fucking bombs.
Those things alone killed a couple hundred thousand people, most of them civilians. War is a fucked up thing, terrible shit happens. the Nazi's may have been the worst of the bunch. But they got what was coming to them a long long time ago. To hunt down the few dying remnants of a long dead organization is petty and stupid.[/QUOTE]
That's not how justice works. It might have happened a long time ago but [I]it still happened[/I]. Maybe they regret it now, maybe they were forced. It doesn't matter, they still did it and they have to answer for it.
I'm not saying they deserve to die, because that's fucking barbaric, but they do have to face the consequences of what they did like we all do.
One thing I would mention is that very few of these still tried will ever face any real punishment.
As far as I know, most (all?) today cases end up with these found guilty just nothing but proclaimed guilty, but spared of jail for health reasons. (taking care of geriatrics in jail would be either inhumane or expensive as hell, so they just name their crimes and official recognize them, and let them die in shame on their own)
[QUOTE=scout1;41561923]So give me your numbers. When does my genocide become acceptable. Do I have to wait 10 years before I'm a free man? 20? 30? At what point do I just get off scot free, regardless of the murders I perpetuated? And if half my buddies get caught, do I get out? 60%? 70%?
Tell me at what point mass murder becomes acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Their crimes are unforgiveable, im not denying that. I've never said mass murder was acceptable.
But its been so long, that at this point, its not even worth the time and effort.
The only real thing it provides to people is a ~good feeling~ that some sort of justice was served.
I'd like to see them stand for what they have done, but its honestly too late now.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41561959]But its been so long, that at this point, its not even worth the time and effort.
[/QUOTE]
[B]HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?[/B]
[QUOTE=scout1;41561980][B]HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?[/B][/QUOTE]
When it's too late for punishment to be carried out.
[QUOTE=scout1;41561980][B]HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?[/B][/QUOTE]
Dude... Its been nearly a fucking century, common sense is authorized.
[QUOTE=scout1;41561980][B]HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?[/B][/QUOTE]
they're p much at deaths door already at this point
it's absolutely not wrong to hate them and not forgive them for what they did, it's a really fucking dark point in history, but come on, there's no point doing anything with them now.
[QUOTE=scout1;41561980][B]HOW LONG IS TOO LONG?[/B][/QUOTE]
Dude, do you realize how old the people we are talking about are?
Hell, for fun. Lets say ALL the remaining nazis were fifteen at the end of WW2.
Oh look, that means they are all at least eighty fucking five. What are you trying to prove here? That you can lock up some old dying people who did some fucked up shit in the past? There's no justice here, its just petty revenge.
Justice was served when we completely obliterated the Nazis seventy years ago.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41561998]Dude... Its been nearly a fucking century, common sense is authorized.[/QUOTE]
"Common sense"? We now use "common sense" to determine rule of law? Well, shit, son. I'll like to show you to the UAE, where common sense says getting raped is a crime. You know what intuition and guessing and winging it is? It's the exact opposite of rule of law. It's acting based on how you [I]feel[/I] and it how affects you personally, rather than objectively measuring the problem and its possible solutions. It's saying "Oh, well, that was years ago that I murdered a thousand people, so it's okay now!". It's giving a life sentence to one guy and executing the other because the latter you like less, even if his crimes are of the same magnitude. Maybe we should use "common sense" for the statute of limitations? Oh, well she got raped a year ago. She's probably fine now. Let's not pursue her rapist. Ah, a murder a decade ago. A decade ago is practically forever ago, right? My common sense says so. Who cares about the mansons? We should just let them out of jail now, because those murders were so long ago. After all, common sense says they're reformed, no matter what the evidence says.
Rule of law dictates that we should pursue them. Not only because the murder of one human being is an atrocity, but because the mass murder of such is worse. We do not put a statute of limitations on murder. We shall not put one on mass murder, either. You do not get to escape prosecution because you are 90 years old, neither because you did it an arbitrary amount of years ago. You may not be legally culpable for your crimes, and that will be reflected in trial. But god damn it, we do not [B]pick and choose[/B] to not try people because some of us are too damned apathetic to care about genocide. They will be tried.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562077]"Common sense"? We now use "common sense" to determine rule of law? Well, shit, son. I'll like to show you to the UAE, where common sense says getting raped is a crime. You know what intuition and guessing and winging it is? It's the exact opposite of rule of law. It's acting based on how you [I]feel[/I] and it how affects you personally, rather than objectively measuring the problem and its possible solutions. It's saying "Oh, well, that was years ago that I murdered a thousand people, so it's okay now!". It's giving a life sentence to one guy and executing the other because the latter you like less, even if his crimes are of the same magnitude. Maybe we should use "common sense" for the statute of limitations? Oh, well she got raped a year ago. She's probably fine now. Let's not pursue her rapist. Ah, a murder a decade ago. A decade ago is practically forever ago, right? My common sense says so. Who cares about the mansons? We should just let them out of jail now, because those murders were so long ago. After all, common sense says they're reformed, no matter what the evidence says.
Rule of law dictates that we should pursue them. Not only because the murder of one human being is an atrocity, but because the mass murder of such is worse. We do not put a statute of limitations on murder. We shall not put one on mass murder, either. You do not get to escape prosecution because you are 90 years old, neither because you did it an arbitrary amount of years ago. You may not be legally culpable for your crimes, and that will be reflected in trial. But god damn it, we do not [B]pick and choose[/B] to not try people because some of us are too damned apathetic to care about genocide. They will be tried.[/QUOTE]
May I ask why you are so god damn passionate over this?
[QUOTE=scout1;41562077]"Common sense"? We now use "common sense" to determine rule of law? Well, shit, son. I'll like to show you to the UAE, where common sense says getting raped is a crime. You know what intuition and guessing and winging it is? It's the exact opposite of rule of law. It's acting based on how you [I]feel[/I] and it how affects you personally, rather than objectively measuring the problem and its possible solutions. It's saying "Oh, well, that was years ago that I murdered a thousand people, so it's okay now!". It's giving a life sentence to one guy and executing the other because the latter you like less, even if his crimes are of the same magnitude. Maybe we should use "common sense" for the statute of limitations? Oh, well she got raped a year ago. She's probably fine now. Let's not pursue her rapist. Ah, a murder a decade ago. A decade ago is practically forever ago, right? My common sense says so. Who cares about the mansons? We should just let them out of jail now, because those murders were so long ago. After all, common sense says they're reformed, no matter what the evidence says.
Rule of law dictates that we should pursue them. Not only because the murder of one human being is an atrocity, but because the mass murder of such is worse. We do not put a statute of limitations on murder. We shall not put one on mass murder, either. You do not get to escape prosecution because you are 90 years old, neither because you did it an arbitrary amount of years ago. You may not be legally culpable for your crimes, and that will be reflected in trial. But god damn it, we do not [B]pick and choose[/B] to not try people because some of us are too damned apathetic to care about genocide. They will be tried.[/QUOTE]
it would be too expensive to imprison them is the problem. we could either spend hundreds of thousands per prisoner or we can subject them to normal imprisonment and they die in a week.
the third and more sensible route is to just let them be because they're gonna die in a week anyway
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41562014]they're p much at deaths door already at this point
[/QUOTE]
According to your expert testimony? Gee, the life expectancy of males is about 70 years. So 20 years ago we shouldn't have tried any of them, because they'd be dead in a few years. Now they're 90. Is that how it works, we just decide to forgo examining the issue in a trial because we feel one way or the other? We dismiss evidence, rather than examining it? Fuck the trial, because we already know what justice is, right?
[QUOTE=Nazi666;41560574]My name has nothing to do with it. I made this account when I was thirteen. They don't deserve to be free for the crimes they commited. You pray that I don't EVER see a SS soldier/wehrmacht soldier who commited a warcrime or I'll take justice in to my own hands.[/QUOTE]
You're just as disgusting as them, if not more so. You realize these were among the thoughts of the Nazis who killed the Jews in the first place, right? They all thought the Jews were the cause of Germany's economic downfall and were all horrible criminals.
[editline]23rd July 2013[/editline]
People like you are what created Nazis to begin with.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562100]May I ask why you are so god damn passionate over this?[/QUOTE]
Oh I don't know, some tens of million dead is something of a touchy spot. No I just feel absolutely nothing when I see the murder of many dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of people.
[QUOTE=butre;41562114]it would be too expensive to imprison them is the problem. we could either spend hundreds of thousands per prisoner or we can subject them to normal imprisonment and they die in a week.
the third and more sensible route is to just let them be because they're gonna die in a week anyway[/QUOTE]
I bet they would have died 'last week' too. And the week before that. And the week before that.
I'm in a higher risk group for heart disease. I guess I'll die in the next year? Please don't prosecute me when I kill some people. I'll be dead soon, surely.
[QUOTE=T553412;41561685]Göering, WWI ace, chief of the Luftwaffe, [b]close buddy of Hitler[/b],[/quote]
They weren't friends.
Goering liked Hitler from the moment he saw him in late 1922, but Hitler was really only drawn to Goering because of the fact that he was a distinguished veteran of the First World War (a recipient of the Pour le Merite, commander of the Richthofen Squadron and whatnot), and he needed distinguished veterans to lead the Sturmabteilung from the perspectives of experience and authority. Otherwise, he would frequently make remarks to his associates about how obese Goering was, how he hated his aristocratic lifestyle and attitude, his addiction to morphine, etc.
Later on when Eva Braun entered the picture, things got worse between the two of them. Goering hated her, and that made Hitler dislike Goering even more than he already did. Notice you never see him in any of the private films she made at the Berghof; you see Goebbels, Speer, Himmler, Heydrich, and plenty of other notable figures, but never Goering.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562077]"Common sense"? We now use "common sense" to determine rule of law? Well, shit, son. I'll like to show you to the UAE, where common sense says getting raped is a crime. You know what intuition and guessing and winging it is? It's the exact opposite of rule of law. It's acting based on how you [I]feel[/I] and it how affects you personally, rather than objectively measuring the problem and its possible solutions. It's saying "Oh, well, that was years ago that I murdered a thousand people, so it's okay now!". It's giving a life sentence to one guy and executing the other because the latter you like less, even if his crimes are of the same magnitude. Maybe we should use "common sense" for the statute of limitations? Oh, well she got raped a year ago. She's probably fine now. Let's not pursue her rapist. Ah, a murder a decade ago. A decade ago is practically forever ago, right? My common sense says so. Who cares about the mansons? We should just let them out of jail now, because those murders were so long ago. After all, common sense says they're reformed, no matter what the evidence says.
Rule of law dictates that we should pursue them. Not only because the murder of one human being is an atrocity, but because the mass murder of such is worse. We do not put a statute of limitations on murder. We shall not put one on mass murder, either. You do not get to escape prosecution because you are 90 years old, neither because you did it an arbitrary amount of years ago. You may not be legally culpable for your crimes, and that will be reflected in trial. But god damn it, we do not [B]pick and choose[/B] to not try people because some of us are too damned apathetic to care about genocide. They will be tried.[/QUOTE]
Seriously. Yes, law dictates that we should pursue them, try them, throw them in jail. But when we are talking about small individuals of an organization nearly a century dead. Its just not worth the effort.
Seriously? You are comparing one year to seventy? These people will almost all be dead in ten years if not less. There is no "apathy" in this. Its realizing that to try them is a waste of our time. What will you gain? What will you prove?
I have not once said in my posts that what these men have done is acceptable. What they have done is absolutely horrific. And to put them on stand would be the correct thing to do. But at this point in their final years, the only thing you'll get to do is say, "hey world, this guy is a genocidal monster!".
Thats it, thats literally all you get to do. Is all this effort really worth hunting them down?
The world learns that some guy who may have been living a decent life was a monster in the past. Whoop dee damn doo. Oh look, hes dead now.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562144]Oh I don't know, some tens of million dead is something of a touchy spot. No I just feel absolutely nothing when I see the murder of many dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of people.
I bet they would have died 'last week' too. And the week before that. And the week before that.
I'm in a higher risk group for heart disease. I guess I'll die in the next year? Please don't prosecute me when I kill some people. I'll be dead soon, surely.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ man tone down the autism.
so you (scout1) believe 20% of the german population should have been charged with genocide simply because they fought in the war
[QUOTE=scout1;41562122]According to your expert testimony? Gee, the life expectancy of males is about 70 years. So 20 years ago we shouldn't have tried any of them, because they'd be dead in a few years. Now they're 90. Is that how it works, we just decide to forgo examining the issue in a trial because we feel one way or the other? We dismiss evidence, rather than examining it? Fuck the trial, because we already know what justice is, right?[/QUOTE]
it's a fucking waste of time and money. there's no point. these fucks are gonna die within the decade. we know what they did, it's fucking terrible, and there's no excuse for it.
it's too late.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562144]Oh I don't know, some tens of million dead is something of a touchy spot. No I just feel absolutely nothing when I see the murder of many dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions of people.
I bet they would have died 'last week' too. And the week before that. And the week before that.
I'm in a higher risk group for heart disease. I guess I'll die in the next year? Please don't prosecute me when I kill some people. I'll be dead soon, surely.[/QUOTE]
So you say that having heart disease is comparable to being a ninety year old man?
lmao.
And regardless, if you were to kill somebody now, we would punish you for it. [B]BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL BE PUNISHED FOR IT
[/B]
These people are absolutely ancient, nothing you do will be of any real significance to them. They have already lived out their life.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149]Seriously. Yes, law dictates that we should pursue them, try them, throw them in jail. [/QUOTE]
No, the law dictates we should try them, and if found guilty, we shall determine what an appropriate sentence would be. In many of the cases, it doesn't involve jail.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149]S But when we are talking about small individuals of an organization nearly a century dead. Its just not worth the effort. [/QUOTE]
I only killed 20 gypsies! That's okay, right? Or maybe I killed 2000, but it's 100 years ago. [B]Rule of law is never going to operate on how you feel, because you yourself cannot determine where the line is. You refuse to give a number of when it becomes non-prosecutable because you can't.[/B]
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149]Seriously? You are comparing one year to seventy? These people will almost all be dead in ten years if not less.[/QUOTE]
Yes. I am. Because you cannot tell me what the difference is of crimes 1 and 70 years ago. Is 49 years something that should go to trial, but 50 a-okay? You can't give a number!
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149] These people will almost all be dead in ten years if not less. There is no "apathy" in this. Its realizing that to try them is a waste of our time. What will you gain? What will you prove? [/QUOTE]
You determined this without a trial? Without any evidence? Without looking at a single argument? Without hearing another opinion? Why don't we just replace our legal system with what you think? We don't need to hear a defense or a prosecution argument, because you can determine guilt or lack of it with a single thought, apparently.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149]I have not once said in my posts that what these men have done is acceptable. What they have done is absolutely horrific. And to put them on stand would be the correct thing to do. But at this point in their final years, the only thing you'll get to do is say, "hey world, this guy is a genocidal monster!".
[/QUOTE]
Their "final years" have been "final" for about 40 years now. I'm so glad you were able to determine how long they were going to live without taking [B]a single look[/B] at any sort of evidence, like a trial would. Again, we should really replace our legal system with a hivemind of you.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562149]
Thats it, thats literally all you get to do. Is all this effort really worth hunting them down?
The world learns that some guy who may have been living a decent life was a monster in the past. Whoop dee damn doo. Oh look, hes dead now.[/QUOTE]
And maybe he's innocent. That is what we presume. But instead you'd like to slander their names by assuming guilt? You really are a fascinating replacement for the judicial system.
[QUOTE=Nazi666;41560574]My name has nothing to do with it. I made this account when I was thirteen. They don't deserve to be free for the crimes they commited. You pray that I don't EVER see a SS soldier/wehrmacht soldier who commited a warcrime or I'll take justice in to my own hands.[/QUOTE]
hahahaha no you wont you fucking idiot get real
[QUOTE=Griffster26;41561318]I thought Afrika Korps was the worst?
Considering the fact the Rommel hated Hitler and conspired to kill him.[/QUOTE]
Hitler actually liked Rommel and didn't know about the conspiring until much, much later into the war. Even after that, the Afrika corps were still well renowned both within and without the German military.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562210]No, the law dictates we should try them, and if found guilty, we shall determine what an appropriate sentence would be. In many of the cases, it doesn't involve jail.
I only killed 20 gypsies! That's okay, right? Or maybe I killed 2000, but it's 100 years ago. [B]Rule of law is never going to operate on how you feel, because you yourself cannot determine where the line is. You refuse to give a number of when it becomes non-prosecutable because you can't.[/B]
Yes. I am. Because you cannot tell me what the difference is of crimes 1 and 70 years ago. Is 49 years something that should go to trial, but 50 a-okay? You can't give a number!
You determined this without a trial? Without any evidence? Without looking at a single argument? Without hearing another opinion? Why don't we just replace our legal system with what you think? We don't need to hear a defense or a prosecution argument, because you can determine guilt or lack of it with a single thought, apparently.
Their "final years" have been "final" for about 40 years now. I'm so glad you were able to determine how long they were going to live without taking [B]a single look[/B] at any sort of evidence, like a trial would. Again, we should really replace our legal system with a hivemind of you.
And maybe he's innocent. That is what we presume. But instead you'd like to slander their names by assuming guilt? You really are a fascinating replacement for the judicial system.[/QUOTE]
What in the living hell are you going to prove on a soldier in a war from seventy damn years ago? Jack fucking shit, take your holier than thou attitude and please shove it up your pretentious fucking ass.
Im sorry that you feel human beings have the capability to live forever, why don't you go and lookup how many people live past 100. I'll tell you now, its not a lot.
The only thing we'd honestly be able to prove is he was a damn member of the nazi party.
Stop trying to paint me in a bad light just because I can see the nonsense in hunting down ninety year old men for a seventy year old war.
I have not once said the nazis crimes were acceptable. You said it yourself, the murder of a human being is unacceptable, but en-masse it is even more so.
And generally, the punishment for killing a human being certainly does involve jail. But given the advanced age of those still alive the most you're going to do is place them in a damn nursing home.
Please, crank the autism down to zero and stop being an asshole. God damn it had to be said.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;41562159]so you (scout1) believe 20% of the german population should have been charged with genocide simply because they fought in the war[/QUOTE]
If sufficient evidence exists that they participated in such activities, yes. I want them to go to trial be they German, Ukranian, any of the SS foreign legions, American, British, all of them.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41562162]it's a fucking waste of time and money. there's no point. these fucks are gonna die within the decade. we know what they did, it's fucking terrible, and there's no excuse for it.
it's too late.[/QUOTE]
According to your 5 minutes of thought on the subject? What boundaries did you use to determine when it's "worth it"? How do you know they're going to die in the decade? You're an expert in all these subjects? You think it's "too late"? Are you a victim of any atrocities during WW2? You get to speak for them?
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562167]So you say that having heart disease is comparable to being a ninety year old man?
[/QUOTE]
I'm going to die in a decade, according to [I]common sense.[/I] Tell me what the difference is.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562167]
And regardless, if you were to kill somebody now, we would punish you for it. [B]BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL BE PUNISHED FOR IT
[/B][/QUOTE]
So can a 90 year old man. Unless they are deemed medically unfit for trial. And guess what, that means actually examining the issue, not pretending it doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;41562167]
These people are absolutely ancient, nothing you do will be of any real significance to them. They have already lived out their life.[/QUOTE]
So if I'm 90 I can kill people with impunity because nothing you can do to me will matter? Okay. I'll see you in 70 years. I hope you don't mind if I shave 20 years off your life expectancy.
[QUOTE=Nazi666;41560746]
German soldiers raping a Ukrainian girl (the actual rape is censored for your protection.)
[/QUOTE]
It's not like pretty much any forces in that war (or any one before) commited same crimes on occupied territories, but everyone chose to forget about it, as they have won the war. I'm not talking about insitutionalized genocides. I'm talking about rape, looting and so on. Everyone did it, but hey! Germans lost the war, so let's forget about our crimes and concentrate on their crimes, and call it justice!
Hunting down nazis to this day is dumb. Most of these people are dead, and ones who live to this day are 90 year old, their life was enough punishment as it is - hiding somewhere, keeping your identity secret is not fun at all. They can't do shit, so putting them in jail, or killing them has nothing to do with justice. It's revenge in it's most blatant, barbaric appearance.
[QUOTE=scout1;41562255]
I'm going to die in a decade, according to [I]common sense.[/I] Tell me what the difference is.[/QUOTE]
the difference is that you're an awful poster who keeps spouting his autism about nazis
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
