War crimes denial - should ACG have a policy?

[asterix]

A current thread with another member on the topic of an ethnic cleansing campaign during a not-so-distant past conflict, revealed this person's view of not only the campaign (denial, and/or acceptance), but also of several key figures who took part and are now convicted war criminals sitting in jail as being positive and praiseworthy.

It reaches into the realm Holocaust denial and/or the praising of Nazi war criminals usually reserved on websites of very dubious reputation and frquented by even more dubious characters. Those websites have usually garnered universal condemnation and labels of "hate" sites. Most forums and online discussion groups, internet sales/chat groups and blogs readily block and bar members with such views.

After having brought up the topic with a moderator, the mod was surprised to find out that ACG has no clear-cut policy on such matter and suggested I ask the question here for members to weigh in.

So my question is simply this:

What should ACG policy be in regards to the denial/denigrating of historical war crimes, and the praising of those who were their perpetrators...particularly those who were tried and convicted?

My answer - we don't need those people here. Allowing so would might also attract unwanted attention to ACG.

[Snowygerry]

(…)
What should ACG policy be in regards to the denial/denigrating of historical war crimes, and the praising of those who were their perpetrators...particularly those who were tried and convicted ?

Lock them in one particular "asylum" thread in a political board and let them argue among themselves untill they tire of it, move all similar arguments elsewhere there.

Diligently guard the argument so as to not have it spill over in other historical threads.

Remember the provocative effect they have is the main attraction of this line of arguments, there's little of historical interest in it.

Introducing rules "a la tete du client" is a bad idea imho.



Edit, looking at (what I think) is the thread in question it is just two posters basically repeating themselves for 6 pages or so, just get out of there and let them have at it, while they're doing that they're not posting nonsense elsewhere

[leandros]

No! The US don't..

Fred

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Censorship is not the answer.

And many things which are considered war crimes by some, are not considered war crimes by others.

Frankly, every war in history is considered a war crime by someone or another.

Other than the Holocaust, there aren't very many universally recognized war crimes.

So first, we would have to agree on what is a war crime. As a Native American, I would argue that every action taken by France between 1600 and 1970 is a war crime, while any action taken against France in that same period (excluding actions by the Third Reich against French Jews) are simple justice.

The same could be argued about any of the European colonial powers.

Which means we have just ended 95% of the history forum.

Best to just try to man up and accept that others have different opinions and deal with it.

Although if we do start assigning crimes against Humanity, Sweden is going to the top of the list, IKEA alone is reason enough for a national purge with fire and steel, and that is only one of the horrors they have inflicted.

[asterix]

So first, we would have to agree on what is a war crime. As a Native American, I would argue that every action taken by France between 1600 and 1970 is a war crime, while any action taken against France in that same period (excluding actions by the Third Reich against French Jews) are simple justice.

That funny...because my wife is also Native American, and holds the view that everything the Brits/American did during the same time frame constitutes a series of war crimes, and any action taken against the UK/US in regards to the Native nations is simple justice....but that's just her. Her argument: "they got us hooked on alcohol, but our tobacco does a good job killing them too."

[Arnold J Rimmer]

That funny...because my wife is also Native American, and holds the view that everything the Brits/American did during the same time frame constitutes a series of war crimes, and any action taken against the UK/US in regards to the Native nations is simple justice....but that's just her. Her argument: "they got us hooked on alcohol, but our tobacco does a good job killing them too."

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.

But it proves my point: the difference between war and war crime is based on the side you're on.

I regularly lambaste the British Empire for what it did in North America, while supporting its actions in Ireland.

Everyone chooses a side.

[asterix]

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.

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"?

[Rojik]

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.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

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.

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.

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.

[Snowygerry]

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.

[asterix]

Sure. I'm from a Plains tribe,

and exhaustive ****

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

[Rojik]

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.

[asterix]

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.

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!

[Snowygerry]

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

[Arnold J Rimmer]

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...