Big assumption. Many Hitler youth made the choice to fight for Germany, and joined on their own before children were being drafted.

As for those that were conscripted, is it your position that draftees are somehow immune from responsibility for murdering their neighbors, women, children, rapes, burning towns, or planting millions of landmines on foreign soil, etc? How convenient for them. I don't believe that's a popular or legal position.

I take responsibility for my actions. If their fate was mine, I would be eternally grateful I was treated so much better than I would have treated them if the tables were turned. I would be part of an invading Nazi army, trying to undo just a tiny bit of the damage we had caused, doing so at the direction of my superiors just like when I caused the situation. I would deserve execution, not release. This assumes I wouldn't have the spine to refuse to be a Nazi and be imprisoned or executed.

If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power. You give them far too much credit. From the holocaust encyclopedia- "Opposition to the Nazi regime also arose among a very small number of German youth, some of whom resented mandatory membership in the Hitler Youth." Same with adults, the opposition was a minority by far, not the majority of Germans. Who told you that?

"Survived the fighting"? "Here"? "They"? Please finish your thoughts so they have meaning. You seem to be equating Nazi soldiers with the Jews they tried to eradicate. What?!?

The Geneva convention we know today was ratified in 1949. The accords of 1929 were found to be totally insufficient to protect POWs, civilians, infrastructure, etc. Yes, Germany did appear violate it's vague provisions....so did the allies. That's why it was strengthened in 49.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

What provision of the 1929 version do you claim this violates?

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
Or
Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. ("Safe" and "war related" being intentionally vague and unenforceable).
Please explain the specific violation that makes mine removal a "war crime". It's not war related, the war was over, and it's "safe" if done properly.
Since this was done at the direction of German officers, the convention as written then doesn't apply.

Death camp!!! LOL. Now I know you aren't serious.
"The removal was part of a controversial agreement between the German Commander General Georg Lindemann, the Danish Government and the British Armed Forces, under which German soldiers with experience in defusing mines would be in charge of clearing the mine fields.
This makes it a case of German soldiers under German officers and NCOs clearing mines under the agreement of the German commander in Denmark who remained at his post for a month after the surrender - this means Germany accepted that they had responsibility to remove the mines - they just had far too few experienced mine clearance experts and far too many “drafted” mine clearers with no real experience in doing so." So, if it's a war crime, it's one the Germans committed against themselves.

I'm happy to say that anything done to a Nazi soldier is ethical, age notwithstanding. Many Nazi youth were more zealous and violent than their adult counterparts. Removing their DNA from the gene pool would have been ethical, but illegal. Taking their country to create Israel would have been ethical, but didn't happen.

At the time, there were few mechanical means of mine removal, they didn't work on wet ground, they required a tank and that the area be pre-cleared of anti tank mines, they often get stuck on beaches, and had just over a 50% clearance rate, cost $300-$1000 per mine removed, and they were in extremely short supply after the war. The Germans volunteered in this instance. Now, the Mine Ban Treaty gives each state the primary responsibility to clear its own mines, just like this agreement did.

So you know, the film is fiction, not history. Maybe read up on the real history before attacking countries over a fictional story. History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes.

These boys neither chose the age of conscription nor to go to war. Given their age and the time in the war, they would have been forcably made to fight. If you had the misfortune to be born then and there, thier fate could be yours.

Being in the German army did not imply being a Nazi, the majority of the German population were victims as well, pointlessly lead to slaughter by monsters.

Those of them that would have survived the fighting ended up here. They didn't feed them. They worked until they died. They expected them to die. They wanted them to die.

The Geneva Conventions were signed in 1929 making this an official war crime if that's important to you. I'd say the law does not define ethics, and I'd be happy to say this is wrong regardless of the treaty.

As for alternatives for mine clearance. I'm not a military expert, but I believe there are techniques, equipment, tools or vehicles that can be used to reduce the risk to operators. Frankly it's besides the point. Just because someone cannot think of a solution they prefer over running a death camp, does not mean they are not free to do so.

If you have the time, I'd recommend watching the film. It's excellent. And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated.

I believe they were death panels.

. . . Which determine if you get into death camp. Remember, it's never to early to start studying for the death panel.

Anyone else remember scandals like tan suits or terrorist fists bumps? How the fox news crowd lost its mind at these outrages!

How about all those old people death camps!

Anyone with that hairdo should be rounded up and lead to the death camps. That will solve more issues than banning tipping.

@lantern53

ah my friend.
you seem to have fallen into the propaganda trap.
allow enoch to chat with you for a bit.

are you comfy? need a drink? coffee? a beer?

ok,then let us begin

this is not a political ideology.
this is not right nor left.(seriously limiting terms anyways).

this is about the full picture.

so let us discuss WHAT propaganda actual is,rather than what we are TOLD it is.
propaganda is simply manipulated information presented in a way to appeal to our irrational and emotional response rather than our rational and reasonable.

when i use the term "manipulated" i am not inferring or implying an outright conspiracy (though often-times it may possibly be a conspiracy) but rather a set goal to illicit the desired response.

and there is always an element of truth in propaganda but the truth being presented is controlled and manipulated.which is apparent in your commentary.

corporations use this tactic and we call it mass marketing but the first usage was that of the state to control its own citizenry.america being the major and first to pioneer this tactic.see:edward bernaise and the council of propaganda (later changed to the council of public relations).

so let us break down your examples which i assume are an attempt by you to discredit the assertions in dr wasfi's speech in this video.

1.to point out the crimes against humanity is a straw man argument.
it is irrelevant.
it is a last ditch effort by the american government to excuse and/or validate an illegal war of aggression:
a.no weapons of mass destruction
b.no connection to al qaeda
c.almost 1 trillion lost (literally,they cant account for that money)

so the american government points to the atrocities of saddam hussein and says "look! look at what a bad person he is"!

SQUIRREL!

which brings us to your next point.

2.the atrocities you are referring to were well know when saddam was a paid participant by multiple government agencies.
let me say that again for you:
saddams atrocities were WELL known and was on the american government payroll.
did saddam gas the kurds?------yes
who sold him the gas components?---we did.

so when my government,in a last ditch effort to absolve its complicity in the wreckage that is iraq by pointing to the awful and horrific acts saddam perpetrated on his own people as somehow making the invasion of iraq a righteous act is utter..and complete..hypocrisy.

they KNEW what he was doing and did nothing because it was politically expedient for them to do so.they wished to corral iran and the ends justified the means.see:Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard

there are many MANY accounts where the american government turned a blind eye to the suffering of other nation-states citizens because it did not align with our interests.

i find the whole situation morally repugnant and it angers me even further when i see the propaganda twisting my fellow countrymen into believing this is somehow a morally just way to deal with despots,tyrants,zealots.

when it was MY country who put them in power in the first place!

the rationalizations are so deeply cynical and hypocritical that it creates an almost vacuum of cognitive dissonance.

and this is my main point in regards to your commentary.
it is a rationalization given to you by those who wish to continue to oppress,dominate and control those who are powerless.

it gives a semblance of morality where there is none.

because if we took your commentary to its logical conclusion:that sometimes war is necessary to rid the world of "evil" (an arbitrary term based on perspective),then why are we not in those countries that ALSO oppress,kill,maim,torture and immiserate their citizens?

answer:because it does not serve the interests of this government.

so the only usage of emotional heart string pulling is to give americans a sense of moral superiority,while not dealing with the actual reality.

you are being manipulated my friend.
and they have given you a convenient myth to hold onto.

by my commentary i am not dismissing the great works of my country nor am i saying that my country is inherently evil.
i served my country and did my duty.

but i also will not turn a blind eye to the reality on the ground just because i find that information..uncomfortable.

many times the truth is uncomfortable and it takes courage to look at it with clear eyes and a critical mind.

i always stick to the axiom:governments lie

as for your nazi reference,
i invoke godwins law.
the death camps were not even a known reality till the war was almost over and were not the reasons for the war in the first place.
so the context is irrelevant.

as always,
eyes open...
and stay sharp.

@lantern53 keepin it frosty since 1982.stay awesome my man

http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

You forgot the Saddam-aids death camps...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner I think the point is that if you want to not exist on tax dollars, you don't also get to legislate out competitors.

Big shrug here. I don't really see a problem with that. Maybe if I thought the service we were getting was a bad deal I'd feel differently, but I think we're getting a pretty good deal.

I'm a lot more worried about the near-monopolies we've got in broadband internet and mobile phone service than I am about the USPS's monopoly on 1st class mail service.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
They loose money as well, perhaps it is time to let someone else take a stab at it?

Ahh, do they? Or is their financial situation being weighed down by a requirement Congress saddled them with to pre-fund health benefits?

Again, I just don't see the point in messing with how the Post Office works. It seems like the (half-hearted) efforts from the right to destroy it have more to do with long-term political strategy than an actual effort to make someone's life better.

After all, it's pretty hard to tell people scare stories about how socialism leads to death camps, when one can just point at the postman and say "oh really?"

>> ^bremnet:

"Air raids on non-military targets that claim large numbers of civilian casualties are prohibited under international law". I guess the International Police were busy that day. For people to be shocked by such practices or debate it in the context of whether it is civil or not during war are delusional. It's war after all. (Should the Allies have stopped carpet bombing Germany while millions of other civilians are taken to the death camps because, you know, it's the proper thing to do? My ancestors would have voted no).


How is it better to try to kill everyone in the city--including innocent civilians, Jews, and POWs (like Kurt Vonnegot, who was in Dresden during that attack) than to do a targeted bombing campaign that specifically targets infrastructure, communications, and factories?

"It's war, after all."

You could justify just about anything with that statement, including the indiscriminate use of nuclear and chemical weapons, the execution of POWs, or the flying of jet planes into skyscrapers. It's not delusional to do as much as possible to prevent atrocities from occurring (or re-occurring as the case may be). You may not be able to wage a war without the possibility of an atrocity occurring but that certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't try to limit that possibility as much as possible.

"Air raids on non-military targets that claim large numbers of civilian casualties are prohibited under international law". I guess the International Police were busy that day. For people to be shocked by such practices or debate it in the context of whether it is civil or not during war are delusional. It's war after all. (Should the Allies have stopped carpet bombing Germany while millions of other civilians are taken to the death camps because, you know, it's the proper thing to do? My ancestors would have voted no).

He's always trying to keep republicans happy even though they hate him.

Bush had to keep Democrats happy even though they hated him too. There is a word for a politician who does whatever he wants over the objections of everyone else. Dictator.

As far as Stewart is concerned? M'eh - nice to see him finally taking a few shots, but he's late to the party. Plus he isn't alarmed at Obama's radicalism or incompetence. No. Like many leftists, Stewart is more upset over 'hypocrisy'. He isn't mad that Obama has death camps or violates the law. He's mad that he's a hypocrite about it. Nice to see Stewart catching up to my analysis, even if it takes him 20 months.

Obama doesn't care about America, or its people. He's a leftist radical from academia who is trying to actualize all the bullcrap theories he and his other college buddies argued about between bong hits. His reaction to the oil spill is a great example. He doesn't care about the oil, or the environment, or business, or people. He just sees this as an excuse to cram Cap & Trade down everyone's throat and so realize another leftist academic pipe-dream (alternative energy).

You can see it every time he opens his flapping yap. He can't stand it when people disagree with him. He doesn't like trying to GOVERN and actually make things work or help people. All he wants to do is hold seminars, give speeches, and run workshops like a good little Alinskyite. He's a small, petty, incompetent, lightweight dilettante. He's out of his league and he knows it. Too bad Stewart - unlike myself - didn't realize this 20 months ago.

Coming from "sumone" too "ignorent" to even know how to spell "genoside" I'll take that pithy remark as the highest compliment.

>> ^westy:

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.
>> ^bcglorf:
People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.

nobody noticed because noone cares to listen to sumone as ignorent as yourself.

>> ^bcglorf:

People have probably noticed I have little patience for the pathetic ignorance that leads people to cry how genocide is happening today, and point at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples.
You are absolutely right that genocide has continued to happen since the holocaust, and few have cared. You're even right to ascribe guilt to America for some of them. But you need to be pointing at Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. You need to be pointing at the era where America backed, or failed to remove Saddam as he perpetuated multiple genocides of his own.
But more importantly still, if you actually care about genocide being perpetuated then spend some more time talking about the worst ones that are still happening today. Rwanda just recently managed to kill more people more quickly than the nazi death camps, and they did it without setting up camps or factories, they just picked up enough machetes to get the 'job' done. The crew that did it never was caught or stopped either, they were chased out of Rwanda into the Congo, were they are still raping and killing the days away.
Somalia's president is a convicted war criminal by the ICC, and the whole of the Africa Union is willing to protect him, because there are that many leaders of African nations that are all worried that if the Darfur genocide could get him in trouble, they might be too.
The list of genocides going on today, right now, are endless. If the best example you can come up with is the American import of inexpensive chinese labor, I suspect your priorities are NOT on ending genocide and lie in much different place. Don't sully the fight against genocide with your own prejudices.