ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: warspite1
warspite1
Why? Its an interesting thread. Someone just HAD to go and mention Abu Grahib and bringing political %^&* into it [8|] but this can be ignored. That aside its been an interesting topic of conversation and sharing of historical experiences.
Because someone pulled out his political axe to grind. This thread has jumped the track and taken a road that no responsible contributor would take it. Because of him, this thread must die. It started out innocent , but......[:@]
while I wonder about someone saying there wasn't this massacre I also wonder why it is political as soon as the US is involved? It's perfectly fine to speak about massacres, torture or whatever war crime when commited by the Nazis, the Japanese, the Russian, the North Korean, the Chinese, the Iraqis but it's political when it is about the US? One can stand up and say something against the claim that Malmedy is just a myth. Haven't you been defending free speech just recently when German/Austrian forum members stood up against using SS runes on the forum? The SS massacred a hundred captured US prisoners there. Period. Is that political? I don't think so. Denying it is worth standing up against it.But instead you cry foul because he mentions Abu Ghraib? Why?
What if he would have mentioned My Lai? [&:]
Would that have made it non political or better? War crimes should be treated the same on all sides but they aren't. I know more about the holocaust, what the SS and Gestapo did and about Wehrmacht war crimes than I know about Japanese war crimes. But I guess in both countries the responsible have been treated like they deserve = they were mostly hanged if they didn't commit suizide before or after capture. I also do know that US soldiers have not been treated for war crimes in the last 70 years like they would deserve due to other layout of what is right and what is wrong. I am sure you see that as a political statement but I'd say it's just reflecting the fact that the United States are defending their soldiers no matter what. This may not be a bad thing for US citizens but for the rest of the world (quite a couple of human beings outside the US) it is hard to understand that every non US soldier would be treated different for the same criminal acts. This is one of the things I never understood, especially when one thinks about what would happen if it wouldn't be a soldier but a US civilian.
Everybody on the planet should be treated for what he did, period. And it is disgusting - independent of side - when war crimes are denied. The problem is, EVERY side has it's war criminals because that is what war brings up, the worst. The holocaust is probably the worst that ever happened and a whole nation was involved. But killing 100 prisoners/civilians by side A is just as worse as 100 prisoners/civilians killed by side B. There is no good or bad in these examples. Both involve war criminals.
War crimes ARE war crimes. That's about the only thing here you and I agree on. It wasn't that he mentioned the US. Others had already done that. It was HOW he mentioned it. He attempted to make it personal. If you REALLY want to do the responsible thing , either try and have this thread locked, or try and steer it back to being non personal. If you don't want to do that , then go ahead and introduce Me Lai. Or Ft. Pillow. Or anyone of another 1000 shameful acts. So it comes down to this. Do you want to act responsibly , or simply throw fuel on the fire? [&:]
