Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War crimes denial - should ACG have a policy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post

    So you get your jollies off by poking fun of other people's services because their ROE doesn't jive with how you'd direct an action film?

    Is this why cops have a reputation for poor trigger discipline? It all makes sense now.
    You said it yourself: you were afraid of the Serb army.

    You're no different from everyone else who stood by and did nothing. Those people didn't matter to you then, any more than France mattered to your grandfather in 1940.

    I don't blame you; the French can't fight. That's well-established.

    But sending one old man to prison doesn't change what you did not do.

    Leave a comment:


  • asterix
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    It's not as if such opinions go unchallenged either, so I doubt they negatively impact the ACG as a "brand" so to speak.
    That is a risk ACG will have to access themselves. That is why I was asked to pose the question, to get a feel from members. But in the end, it's up to ACG to decide because it apparently wasn't considered before.

    Leave a comment:


  • asterix
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    I don't rant, but I do strive for humor. Most topics, and posters, here are funny in and of themselves.

    For an example, a guy who stood by and ignored the commission of war crimes thinking he is different from those who pulled the triggers because he approves of one token effort decades after the fact...
    So you get your jollies off by poking fun of other people's services because their ROE doesn't jive with how you'd direct an action film?

    Is this why cops have a reputation for poor trigger discipline? It all makes sense now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    Ok, so it is permissible to claim that such persons are heroes...despite their convictions for said crimes? Right, I'm glad you clarified that. We can move on now.
    "Permissible" as long as it is done in accordance with the rules, yes.

    If you started a thread for just that purpose it would be edited or deleted I imagine, as a comment in an existing thread it will pass.

    It's not as if such opinions go unchallenged either, so I doubt they negatively impact the ACG as a "brand" so to speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    What's a war crime ? Where is the limit ? And why should we consider something to be a war crime when it was done by our country in its interests ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    Ok, so it is permissible to claim that such persons are heroes...despite their convictions for said crimes?
    In a nation that has free speech, yes.

    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    I think Snowygerry just found it. Apparently it's ok to hail as heroes convicted war criminals...and perhaps even justify their actions as a "defense" of motherland...blah-blah. We just can't deny their deeds.
    Well, the French chose to cooperate with the Final Solution, which is undeniable, and their only excuse is 'we didn't have the balls to fight when we had the chance'.

    Kind of the same excuse you gave for Bosnia: you were afraid for your own safety...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post

    and exhaustive ****

    You should be a comedian, because that rant was funny.
    I don't rant, but I do strive for humor. Most topics, and posters, here are funny in and of themselves.

    For an example, a guy who stood by and ignored the commission of war crimes thinking he is different from those who pulled the triggers because he approves of one token effort decades after the fact...

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Rojik View Post
    It is an interesting question. I find Mentos a thoroughly disgusting person - someone that is able to justify some seriously evil things. But if we shut him down do we risk him gathering converts? Or by not shutting him down do we get the chance to make people that might be converts think again?

    I don't know, but I know there has to be a line somewhere. It's where that line is.
    Here on the ACG ?

    The rules obviously as they are posted there for all to see, can't go change them and then retro-actively apply them to posts already written.

    Out there in rl is a natural "line" and that's the point where your offensive opinion will get you a well-deserved ass kicking.

    The internet is a "safe space" for all sorts of nonsense - here words is all we have

    Leave a comment:


  • asterix
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well - as far I can see, no one denied the warcrimes happened, nor that the convicted individual was responsible for them, nor that he was indeed convicted for them.
    Ok, so it is permissible to claim that such persons are heroes...despite their convictions for said crimes? Right, I'm glad you clarified that. We can move on now.

    Originally posted by Rojik View Post
    I don't know, but I know there has to be a line somewhere. It's where that line is.
    I think Snowygerry just found it. Apparently it's ok to hail as heroes convicted war criminals...and perhaps even justify their actions as a "defense" of motherland...blah-blah. We just can't deny their deeds.

    AQ types can praise OBL for 9/11...they just can't deny they did it.

    That many celebrated the Bataclan is ok..they just can't deny it happened.

    "Mentos"...good one Rojik!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rojik
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well - as far I can see, no one denied the warcrimes happened, nor that the convicted individual was responsible for them, nor that he was indeed convicted for them.

    So strictly speaking it's not "historical revisionism", just "moral justification" of (war) crimes for whatever reason, which happens all the time, and is all in all not that interesting.
    It is an interesting question. I find Mentos a thoroughly disgusting person - someone that is able to justify some seriously evil things. But if we shut him down do we risk him gathering converts? Or by not shutting him down do we get the chance to make people that might be converts think again?

    I don't know, but I know there has to be a line somewhere. It's where that line is.

    Leave a comment:


  • asterix
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    Sure. I'm from a Plains tribe,
    and exhaustive ****

    You should be a comedian, because that rant was funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well - as far I can see, no one denied the warcrimes happened, nor that the convicted individual was responsible for them, nor that he was indeed convicted for them.

    So strictly speaking it's not "historical revisionism", just "moral justification" of (war) crimes for whatever reason, which happens all the time, and is all in all not that interesting.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 25 Mar 19, 09:18.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    Interesting. My wife is mixed Seneca, Wendat and a bit of Mowhak, she's a member of the Seneca Nation but has an uncle on some tribal council representing Wyandots in Ohklahoma. Sh'e always had a pro-French view given her lineage mostly in Canada, so geographically I can understand where her POV comes from.
    Sure. I'm from a Plains tribe, so the French are just ineffective colonizers, while the Brits bailed long before our conflict came. So my beef with the Empire is as an American.


    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    Ok, I agree with this in principal....one man's hero is another man's villain and so on. But my point is that at some point do we not evolve from that and acknowledge that there are victims and criminals...and regardless who they are justice be followed?
    No. The enemy is the enemy.

    Otherwise every French soldier who surrendered in 1940 would be a war criminal for facilitating the Final Solution.

    Originally posted by asterix View Post
    You're a LEO, would you ignore a series of break-ins, thefts, assaults and etc because the victims were of a certain ethnicity or religion and "had it coming to them"?
    Different situation entirely. Soldiers fight the enemy.

    The police, at least in the USA, have no enemies and no friends. We serve the legal system in the abstract.

    However, we are also not blind to the fact that the system, like society, places different values on different people for different reasons. A burglary in one neighborhood is a routine report; in a different neighborhood, it is the subject of attention from the entire chain of command.

    The truest lesson of police work in the USA is to never trust anyone who claims it all matters the same, because they are either hopelessly corrupt, a politician, or an idiot. Or all three.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rojik
    replied
    If convicted then I think that it should be a closed case, if not then open to opinion. You don't want to stifle free speech, but at the same time you don't want want a platform to defend convicted mass murderers. A tough one. Glad I'm not a mod here.

    Leave a comment:


  • asterix
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post



    Depends on the tribe. I tend to have a US-concentric outlook because my people benefited in both the short and the long run, taken in the context of the wars we were fighting before the whites intervened.
    Interesting. My wife is mixed Seneca, Wendat and a bit of Mowhak, she's a member of the Seneca Nation but has an uncle on some tribal council representing Wyandots in Ohklahoma. Sh'e always had a pro-French view given her lineage mostly in Canada, so geographically I can understand where her POV comes from.

    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    But it proves my point: the difference between war and war crime is based on the side you're on.
    Ok, I agree with this in principal....one man's hero is another man's villain and so on. But my point is that at some point do we not evolve from that and acknowledge that there are victims and criminals...and regardless who they are justice be followed? You're a LEO, would you ignore a series of break-ins, thefts, assaults and etc because the victims were of a certain ethnicity or religion and "had it coming to them"?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X