what's beef w/the Hilter youth?

can't abide w/the kill all the baby adolphs vibe. seems extreme. even by WWII standards. just the bare fact that children were used to defuse bombs isn't what one would call kosher. if that was the right of the winning side, one hell of a lot of bombs lying around in Laos and Vietnam - what about sending our Boy Scouts over to take care of the US mess they left?

anyway - not meaning to be mean - at 14 most are not at the level of being correctly called 'idiots'. if you don't know - you just f'n' don't know!

christ on a cracker...know folks who now question what they were thinking joining the Young Republicans - - - AND THEY WERE OF COLLEGE AGE!!!

what is freaky is the line "If the majority of Germans weren't complicit, the Nazis would have never come to power."

2016 mean anything? and that's the MINORITY of Americans!

christ on a cracker...what's the situation on the COVID vaccines? on voting bills? on any f'n' bill or issue in this land? the MINORITY is having their day keeping the rest in the dark.
[2nd Amendment but screw the other 26...or 24...cause 21 cancels 18 = 0]

as you said "History isn't nearly as cut and dry as it's presented, neither are war crimes"
as he said, "And as with most things, particularly in times of war, it's complicated."
but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.

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.

And now the swarms of locusts (ok, really grasshoppers) begin.

Utah farmers, already struggling with drought and extreme heat, are being plagued by grasshoppers destroying what little crops they managed to grow. Early heat caused an early hatch, leading to swarms. Many farmers abandoned their crops rather than go through the expense of spraying a crop they have no water for, allowing a bad situation to get exponentially worse. Hay may soon be in short supply along with produce.

If it's a mild winter, expect worse next year when their eggs hatch. Without improvement in the weather, colder in winter wetter in spring and cooler in summer, farmers nationwide expect next year to be far worse than this year's disastrous growing season. Nevada and Arizona are due to lose their main water source soon, and California expects more water shortages statewide as reservoirs near empty and aquifers go dry.

Sure sounds like the climatologists were correct, if anything minimizing the effects and rate of change from climate change; heat, drought, plagues, swarms, fires. They were not exaggerating them @bobknight33. These are exactly what they predicted, just a decade early, and exactly what you denied would happen. All time high local temperatures were reached worldwide in the last month including ground temperatures of 118 F in arctic Siberia and 130 F last weekend in Death Valley, the hottest atmospheric air temperature ever seen on the planet since humans existed.

But nope, climate change is a liberal hoax, they just have the entire planet lying to support it, destroying their own crops and cooking their citizens to keep the lie going. 🤦‍♂️

I hope you live long enough for your children to accept that their disastrous future was caused by you and your ilk and abandon you to the baking streets in your old age to starve and bake. You ignorant and dishonest deniers deserve worse for decimating the only planet we have. Your children will come to that conclusion, the only question is when.

The police did what they always do when they show up, they immediately put their hands on the black people, which will always escalate the situation resulting in more one-sided violence against the black people. This is why people call the cops. This is the intended result people have when they call the police. Without hearing any sides of the altercation the police chose to get physical and then proceed to drag the black people around. The police were wrong, but they acted as the system intended for them to behave towards minorities. The police will lose in court. The city will pay a settlement to these black women. And finally those who get off on videos like this will have their moment the enjoy another example of white supremacy.

Let's see which politician makes the "takes no prisioners" order first.

Yes, Haitian politics are corrupt, but it's "undestandably so." It's a long suffering people, and the country's desperate situation has been increasingly hopeless for years. It doesn't take much to be willing to go all corrupting for survival.

Not making any assumptions, just raising possibilities that goes through the mind of any cop facing such a situation. And I'm not condoning his behaviour, but I do see how the recent racial unrest would make some cops second-guess their actions, and become reluctant to respond the same way had they faced a white guy.

Also, you never shoot to wound. Shooting is lethal force.

But did he know he was on camera? Did he have a bodycam? The only reason the suspect was seen on camera holding a gun was because the cop backed away. If he had drawn his gun and fired the moment he saw the suspect holding the gun, it wouldn't have been caught on that camera because the suspect was still in the room. Then you would have a situation of only eyewitness testimony. And you would have riots.

I'm sure they get a small amount of training for situations like this, probably as much as the city will spend.

The point is, even with that training, there are no good options. If he shoots the black guy, he is simply the latest racist pig murdering 'innocent' people of color.

If he stands there and tries to talk the guy down, a vest doesn't cover your entire body. You can bleed to death from arm or leg shots, plus at that range the head is not a hard to hit target.

Maybe he isn't fit to be a cop. But the point is that because we haven't figured out a way to stop cops from kneeling on someone until they suffocate or shooting people in the back, all cops now have to make a split second decision on whether they can act as they were trained to do or act as protesters, the government, and the media want them to do.

We also judge them on what we think we would do, even though I doubt we will ever be in a similar situation.

I would attempt to get some form of training for similar situations before being given a gun and a bulletproof vest.

The guy should not be thinking about what to do, just doing it.

In this case, I sympathize because Portland has refused to assist or back any of their police in the riots there. The DA has refused to charge anyone who resists arrest or refuses to disperse after police have been given orders to remove rioters (they are rioters. even the Mayor is now saying to stop calling them protesters and to call them anarchists instead).

Why would anyone want to go out, night after night, and face the same people you arrested the night before doing the same stuff?

The fact also exists that Portland has made massive cuts to the police budget. That has led to time off being cancelled for police, no rotations to move fresh police into the riot situations so the same ones have to deal with the face to face confrontations with no break, and the alternative policing option which was hands off was tabled. "A paramedic and a social worker would drive up offering water, a high-protein snack and, always and especially, conversation, aiming to defuse a situation that could otherwise lead to confrontation and violence. No power to arrest. No coercion."

There are a lot of problems with police, for sure. Portland's government is the driver behind these issues, though. Until they start taking a stand against these anarchist, violent protesters (who are PREDOMINANTLY white), the situation will not get better.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/us/portland-protests.html

From what the video says, just one person responsible for inspection has been sacked. They always go after the lowest-ranking person, don't they?

When in fact, if it's possible for one person's mistake, laziness or incompetence to destroy your bridge and kill members of the public, your entire organization is at fault. You have to wonder if it's one of those "so to save money, they fired the night watchman" situations.

Ugh, i just deleted 30 minutes of blah blah blah i had typed out. I just can't afford to get into. Having these back and forth type discussions just ramp up my anxiety I knew it was a bad idea to leave a comment. My bad. (and this is why i can't have nice things)

Still don't think the description holds water regarding that prop 47 is the implied cause for the situation.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Who dares wake Dag from his Sift slumber?! You have been unhobbled. Hobbling should only be used in an emergency when someone with some power is running rampant on the Sift. Anyone using the hobble power outside of that situation will find themselves the hobblee… or worse.