That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
Fierce fighting between rebels and Muammar Gaddafi loyalists has broken out at Libya's only functioning oil refinery in the western city of Az Zawiyah.
The clashes on Wednesday are part of the rebels' push to cut fuel supplies to the regime's stronghold in Tripoli, the capital.
A rebel field commander in Az Zawiyah, Osama Arusi, said the fighting had shut down an oil pipeline to Tripoli and that rebels have surrounded the refinery.
"The pipeline from Az Zawiyah to Tripoli has been switched off," Arusi told the Associated Press news agency. "The man who is responsible for switching the pipeline off said it is not working."
Analysts said the capture of the 120,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Az Zawiyah would not have a major impact on Gaddafi's ability to secure fuel.
The flow of crude oil to the refinery from fields in the southwest of Libya had largely been halted since midsummer. The refinery was believed to be running at about one-third of its normal capacity, drawing mainly on reserve oil stored in its tanks.
Furthermore, Az Zawiyah mostly produced fuel oil, versus gasoline, which Gaddafi was trucking in from Tunisia and Algeria.
"In that sense, it's more significant that they [the rebels] have got control of the roads than the refinery," said John Hamilton, a Libya energy expert with Cross-Border Information and a contributing editor of Africa Energy.
"Strategically, that's a more important gain for the rebels. Having control of the roads makes it much harder for Gaddafi to get the petrol he needs" from Tunisia and Algeria.
About half a mile south of the refinery, an AP reporter saw two cars carrying civilians driving away from the refinery on an otherwise deserted road. Meanwhile, three pickup trucks loaded with fighters sped towards the refinery along the same road, to reinforce the troops.
The Libyan rebels made a dramatic advance on Saturday out of their bases in the western mountains near Tunisia into Az Zawiyah, just 30 miles west of Tripoli.
They took control of parts of the city and have been slowly gaining ground ever since.
The rebels are closing in on the capital from the west and the south, while NATO controls the seas to the north of Tripoli, which sits on the Mediterranean coast.
Goddammit, it seems that there is a hacking campaign ongoing against sites supporting the rebels, too much of a coincidence that both feb17.info and libyafeb17.com are down at the same time.
Libya's opposition fighters claimed to have captured the city of Zlitan, in a deepening push towards the capital, Tripoli, and a further threat to the forces of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The assault on Zlitan, just 150km east of the capital, began around 7:30am local time [0530GMT], and "at 1:00pm local time our information indicates that the rebel troops entered the city centre", the information centre for Misrata military council said in a statement on Friday.
At least 26 rebels are reported to have been killed in the fighting for Zlitan, as forces loyal to Gaddafi used tanks and heavy weapons to repel the attack. Another 150 opposition fighters were reported injured.
The rebels said between 40 and 50 of Gaddafi's forces were also killed in the fighting.
Reuters news agency reported fierce fighting continuing into Friday evening and a large number of wounded brought to the rebels' field hospital.
Libyan rebels have reportedly taken control of the centre of the oil-rich eastern town of Brega, just 50km east of Tripoli.
"It was in the early hours of Saturday morning that opposition forces were able to take the centre of Brega," Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland reported from Benghazi.
"They were holed up in residential districts outside the town for a couple days. Very early on Saturday morning they moved in."
Questions remained about their control of the oil facilities there, she said.
"We are getting conflicted reports, though, about whether they have been able to get control of the oil and gas facility in Brega," she said.
"Initial reports from military commanders both here in Benghazi, and the frontlines, said yes, the rebels had taken that facility.
"But we are also hearing conflicted rumours that in fact a couple of vehicles went out, found the oil depot apparently deserted, and became suspicious, fearing possible booby traps and ambushes."
ZAWIYA, Libya (AP) — Libyan rebels have captured the main square in Zawiya after more than a week of heavy fighting in the strategic city west of Tripoli.
An Associated Press reporter on Saturday entered the square, which was full of rebel trucks and troops.
Moammar Gadhafi's forces remain in the eastern part of the city, and rebels are battling to expel them and claim full control over Zawiya.
A victory in Zawiya would be an important boost for the rebels as they try to tighten the noose on Gadhafi's stronghold in Tripoli, just 30 miles (50 kilometers) to the east.
The regime appears to be increasingly isolated, and is scrambling to marshal all the forces available to it to hold back rebels at the western front.
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
While you are absolutely correct, be careful what you say. I don't want you getting in trouble because of those barbaric thought crime laws imposed on Germany and other countries by the Soviets and Americans (for the reason of subduing questioning rewritten history lol).
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
While you are absolutely correct, be careful what you say. I don't want you getting in trouble because of those barbaric thought crime laws imposed on Germany and other countries by the Soviets and Americans (for the reason of subduing questioning rewritten history lol).
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
While you are absolutely correct, be careful what you say. I don't want you getting in trouble because of those barbaric thought crime laws imposed on Germany and other countries by the Soviets and Americans (for the reason of subduing questioning rewritten history lol).
Thoughtcrimes? We're in 1984 now, I suppose.
Since after WW2, it's a crime in Germany and Austria for certain to question things about WW2, and other things as well. Such things are neither new, nor isolated to some European countries (in fact, it's a lot worse in other parts of the world to protest politics or ideologies). In Turkey as well, it's a crime to talk negatively of Turkey's involvement in WW 1 and of atrocities against Assyrians, Armenians, and others. Same with speaking against Ataturk as he is a great hero for Turks and whatever his faults, is responsible for Turkish independence from Britain, Greece, and France.
As you can imagine, anywhere where questioning things and allowing free thought will be a threat to a certain ideology, group, or beliefs that is in power, it will be suppressed. The basic fundamentals in 1984 have been around for thousands of years before Orwell's book and exist to this day in most of the world (note I say basic fundamentals, so please no one come in being a smart alec claiming I'm referring to nonexistent things like direct mind control and whatnot). The good thing about the US is most people are generally passive and complacent about things, so there's no need for such drastic measures like you always hear about in China and many other places where powerful groups are quite fearful of their populace.
Rebels forces have also broken through the Western Mountains and are driving down towards Tripoli.
Battles are now are taking place in Az Zawiyah and in an area known as the 27 bridge.
"In the last hour we saw hundreds of fighters drive down from the western mountains, down to Az Zawiyah. They're sending reinforcements According to field commanders, there's going to be a major offensive early on Sunday - they're going to push towards Tripoli.
"Opposition forces have still not yet been able to reach the outskirts of Tripoli. They launched a major offensive last Saturday. They entered the city of Az Zawiyah ... but Gaddafi army put up stiff resistance...
"I can still hear the sound of grad rockets landing in this city but rebel fighters have pushed them [Gaddafi's forces] to the east. They've taken control of the city centre and of the main hospital ... now they're trying to take control of the area called 27 bridge. They call that bridge so because it's exactly 27 km from Tripoli."
Tripoli
Libyan Rebels have apparently been inside the city of Tripoli for quite some time it appears, makes sense as they have been pretty much been in hiding or remained as sleeper cells.
AJA: Confirmed casualties in #Fashloum including both #Gaddafi forces and FFs. #libya #feb17 #gaddaficrimes #Tripoli
#Tripoli tonight #Libya Heavy gunfire sustained fire. Moussa calling press conference now. Diplomats here too at #Rixos
#libya we can confirm rebels fighting in tripoli, in at least four areas.
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
While you are absolutely correct, be careful what you say. I don't want you getting in trouble because of those barbaric thought crime laws imposed on Germany and other countries by the Soviets and Americans (for the reason of subduing questioning rewritten history lol).
Thoughtcrimes? We're in 1984 now, I suppose.
Since after WW2, it's a crime in Germany and Austria for certain to question things about WW2, and other things as well. ...
"To question" is the wrong term, the German law says that it's a crime to deny the holocaust. This and the ban on any public display of swastikas are the only German laws concerning WW2 as far as I'm aware.
Explosions and gunfire rocked Tripoli on Saturday night, after days of battlefield defeats left Muammar Gaddafi's government and troops penned ever more tightly in the besieged capital.
The scale of the unrest was unclear, but speculation was rife that Gaddafi's 41-year rule was close to collapse.
Tripoli residents told Reuters they could hear shooting from several locations and there were anti-Gaddafi protesters in the streets. Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim told state television however: "All of Tripoli is safe and stable."
Earlier, opposition fighters expelled government forces from the strategic western city of Az Zawiyah, a major victory in their march on Tripoli.
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
Do you actually have an example of someone convicted for war crimes who should not have received such a punishment?
There are millions of soldiers, officers and higher ups who walked away from wars, being on the losing side, without as much as a fine, whilst having been processed by the law.
To suggest that post-war trials are cheap PR tricks to wreak some final vengeance on the enemy leadership is simply ridiculous.
The problem is that you create a ridiculous mental loop where:
1) If a person is convicted for war crimes, this is wrong. Wether the person is guilty of war crimes is not relevant, it is always vengeance rather then law.
2) If a person receives a low sentence then this is not due to the correct process of law but rather a PR move.
Nothing that a war tribunal does can convince you. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. That circular logic is perhaps enough to convince yourself of these things but it really falls apart when others really look at it.
Finally it's a disturbing thing to say because more often then not it's advocating releasing actuall war criminals who did horrible things, just because you believe that the whole world is corrupt.
>22:57 Al Jazeera Arabic There are a number of casualties, both dead and injured, due to the clashes in the Fashloom and Al Hashan areas in Tripoli right now.
>22:35 NATO On August 19th, NATO aircraft flew 130 sorties, including 26 strike sorties. Some of the key hits included:
In the vicinity of Az Zawiyah: 1 Artillery Piece. In the vicinity of Tripoli: 9 Military Facility, 3 Radars, 1 Radar Guided Anti Aircraft Weapon System, 1 Tank. In the vicinity of Zlitan: 1 Military Logistic Vehicle, 1 Tank.
>22:30 Reuters Multiple explosions rocked Tripoli on Saturday night and repeated anti-aircraft fire was seen streaking across the sky, a Reuters reporter in the city said. Sustained gunfire and thuds were heard in the distance and residents of Tajoura, on Tripoli’s eastern outskirts, reported clashes were under way.
That's still not exactly the same as being put on trial at Nuremberg or the Hague. Probably the most famous example would be William Calley who ended up with 3.5 years of house arrest for the mass slaughter of Vietnamese civilians. Not exactly justice.
International war crimes trials are for war criminals who are not prosecuted by their own country, as far as I know.
Calley was released after 3.5 years because a judge ruled that he received an unfair trial. A higher court overturned the ruling and Richard Nixon gave Calley a pardon.
The idea of prosecuting anyone in a formal setting with a non-kangaroo court for war crimes is pretty new to humanity, we're still working on it.
winners rewrite history, losers get war crimes trials for the victors war crimes some lower ranks get a small punishment for PR reasons, and thats it. the world is not fair, thats just PR from ppl who make profit out of others believing in that.
While you are absolutely correct, be careful what you say. I don't want you getting in trouble because of those barbaric thought crime laws imposed on Germany and other countries by the Soviets and Americans (for the reason of subduing questioning rewritten history lol).
Thoughtcrimes? We're in 1984 now, I suppose.
Since after WW2, it's a crime in Germany and Austria for certain to question things about WW2, and other things as well. ...
"To question" is the wrong term, the German law says that it's a crime to deny the holocaust. This and the ban on any public display of swastikas are the only German laws concerning WW2 as far as I'm aware.
Well I wasn't talking about the holocaust specifically, but it seems that to the original point to which I replied about conquerors rewriting history, I'm quite certain people have been arrested for saying that such things (including holocaust) are exaggerated and backing up certain points of contention, have been arrested. To those authorities and lobby groups, just so you know, questioning is the same as denial.
Have you heard of Galileo and his clashes with the church? Same scenario pretty much.
If there was nothing to hide, even if people did straight up deny stuff, no such laws should exist. They are completely unjustified. Since you specifically brought up WW2, why have academics who have made factual claims of exaggerations of events of the war been persecuted? Is something being hidden (this seems more than likely)?
Isn't Germany a country of democratic principles and liberties? Granted such laws were imposed upon them by the victors of WW2, but it makes no sense to have them, unless they are specifically in place to hide something, and suppress research and discussion. Quite the same in Turkey. The point is that such laws cannot be justified unless it's explicitly meant to suppress thoughts and ideas and research on matters political and other groups don't want people to be messing in. It's like justifying North Korean political stifling, because it works the same way (but on an obviously much larger scale).
In fact, iirc, people back before the late 80s could get in trouble for saying that the facts show that the Soviets did Katyn, not the Germans (or otherwise rejecting that the Germans didn't do it). Fortunately, Gorbachev went nuts and released a lot of classified documents which said it was the USSR. But yeah, before then, making a factual and rational case that the old Katyn story was flawed could get you in trouble, and would fit into what you call denying.
Another example is the soap and lampshade story, which has been held up as pure truth until recently. By now, it's largely been disposed of. How did these two of many possible falsities and exaggerations come about? The simple point that cari-kira made: conquerors write history.
Btw, you brought up WW2 war crimes, so that's why I discussed that, but if you want to talk about other bs'ing and political suppression from whenever and wherever, we can do that as well.
Again going back to kira's point, I also have no doubt that had the Germans won, a ton of things would have been exaggerated about the Russians and it would be a felony to question, think about, or reject (all of these would be put in the category of denying, of course) possibly exaggerated versions of Russian war crimes.
The point is: Not having thought-crime laws in Germany isn't going to make people fucking brain-damaged nazis or whatever (this is the pathetic justification given for those laws), but I have no doubt it's going to lead to a lot of academia that's going to uncover things that will lead to a much bigger shock than it was to the US public that it was indeed false that Iraq had no WMDs, and that Iraq which was the one of the most determined fighters against Islamic extremism (like defeating one of the greatest jihads since the 600s in the Iran-Iraq War) had no ties to Al Qaeda either.
EPT
