Poll: What do you think about Kissinger?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Good guy
40.00%
2 40.00%
Bad guy
60.00%
3 60.00%
Total 5 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Kissinger's Death
#11
Anybody slightly interested in the Chilean story should watch "El Conte (the count)". Henry can Kissinger my ass. Also Lyndon B Johnson is very bad egg.
Reply
#12
Well he died at like a age of 100, makes sense
Reply
#13
I personally view Henry Kissinger as a controversial and, in many ways, negative figure in world history. His role as the U.S. Secretary of State during some pivotal moments, particularly the Vietnam War and the political turmoil in Chile, raises serious ethical concerns for me. The bombings in Cambodia and Laos, along with the overthrow of Chile's democratically elected president Salvador Allende, were actions that, in my opinion, led to unnecessary human suffering and blatant disregard for human rights. These aspects of his career overshadow any positive contributions he might have made, making him, in my eyes, more of a figure to be criticized than celebrated.
Reply
#14
(Dec 17, 2023, 11:46 am)stts2 Wrote: No conviction, no war crime.

Wrong. No conviction = Not convicted =/= No crime = Not guilty.

A war criminal is the one who did what is considered a war crime even if they managed to get away with it and)or nobody knows about it. 

By your logic, Hitler can't be a war criminal since he never attended court neither he was punished for any charges. He may have been convicted, but it's nonsense to issue a trial without the indicted. Such logic is illogic, thus nonsense.
Reply
#15
(Dec 30, 2023, 22:41 pm)dueda Wrote:
(Dec 17, 2023, 11:46 am)stts2 Wrote: No conviction, no war crime.

Wrong. No conviction = Not convicted =/= No crime = Not guilty.

A war criminal is the one who did what is considered a war crime even if they managed to get away with it and)or nobody knows about it. 

By your logic, Hitler can't be a war criminal since he never attended court neither he was punished for any charges. He may have been convicted, but it's nonsense to issue a trial without the indicted. Such logic is illogic, thus nonsense.

Geez. How long was the post, and how ridiculous was the Arab guy being about it? Very long, and very ridiculous. When I got to that point, I was just being blunt. I used 5 words and you used 50. And your 50 words have no bearing on justice or the path of the war. There is just no point to breaking down every piece of minutia. Nobody is going to put Israel on trial for "war crimes". And there is no sign that they should be tried. So who cares about no conviction and not guilty? Sure. In the brain, a person in the dark of night breaking somebodies car window is a vandal. But it means nothing the next day when that person points out to the owner that his car window is busted. The owner will forever wonder who busted his car window, and the "vandal" will jog by and just smirk to himself forever. Especially if he doesn't do that again. So what does the rest of the world call that vandal when nobody knows he busted a car window? They call him a wonderful guy and a model citizen. He may even get a medal for outstanding citizenship. He may even go to the podium to get his medal with a smirk. And the whole world remains clueless. If he is never caught trying that crime again. So there you go, a pointless definition.

It is possible that an Israeli soldier on patrol in Gaza has already come upon a live Gaza baby and ripped it's head off with nobody looking. And when it is found, if it is ever found, nobody will ever know that is was murder, rather than a casualty of a bomb blast. So what does anybody do? Nobody can do anything if they don't know anything. Even if it happened. That person will have to live with what he did in his own head for the rest of his life. The Pope would have serious problems with living with his vandalism. He will probably feel so guilty that he would resign and call himself a bad person. But most everybody else in the world would be proud of that sneaky vandalism and think nothing more of it. Murder is much different. It would certainly haunt most people. Except Gazans that did it, and Israelis bent on justice.

The Gazans are criminals and they are the only ones in this war that will be subjected to prosecution. Unless an Israeli is caught on video being a murderer. And war killings are so far not murder. End of long winded, change nothing, explanation of the practical definition of guilty.
Reply
#16
(Dec 31, 2023, 02:02 am)stts2 Wrote:
(Dec 30, 2023, 22:41 pm)dueda Wrote:
(Dec 17, 2023, 11:46 am)stts2 Wrote: No conviction, no war crime.

Wrong. No conviction = Not convicted =/= No crime = Not guilty.

Geez. How long was the post, and how ridiculous...
There is just no point to breaking down every piece of minutia.
So who cares about no conviction and not guilty?
So there you go, a pointless definition.
...long winded, change nothing, explanation of the practical definition of guilty.

Condensed to spare the readers.

Dunno what the Arabs are doing here now but whatever.

I don't need the definitions, but it is an important part. Criminal is, convicted may be; we can never know, but we should keep that in mind as we should have conscience.

Sorry if you found that thick post painful long. In my defense, I tried to keep it simple!

Yup, no need to be prolific, but I still disagree with the concept.
Reply
#17
(Jan 05, 2024, 22:15 pm)dueda Wrote:
(Dec 31, 2023, 02:02 am)stts2 Wrote:
(Dec 30, 2023, 22:41 pm)dueda Wrote:
(Dec 17, 2023, 11:46 am)stts2 Wrote: No conviction, no war crime.

Wrong. No conviction = Not convicted =/= No crime = Not guilty.

Geez. How long was the post, and how ridiculous...
There is just no point to breaking down every piece of minutia.
So who cares about no conviction and not guilty?
So there you go, a pointless definition.
...long winded, change nothing, explanation of the practical definition of guilty.

Condensed to spare the readers.

Dunno what the Arabs are doing here now but whatever.

I don't need the definitions, but it is an important part. Criminal is, convicted may be; we can never know, but we should keep that in mind as we should have conscience.

Sorry if you found that thick post painful long. In my defense, I tried to keep it simple!

Yup, no need to be prolific, but I still disagree with the concept.

Humm, the third point is interesting. "... but we should keep that in mind as we should have conscience."

I think about that abit from time to time. It goes back to the argument of whether the ends justifies the means. I'm a practical person so I mostly do the practical thing. But I look around and see the conscience of things and what it means. We already got a president that is saving the "soul" of America. And look what it's getting us. I got a buddy whose pretty christian and he's fed up with Trump. Christians don't talk like him or act like him, he says. And I told him to vote for the Pope as president next time. There's no way the Pope could live with a boarder wall. The Pope would be on TV every night begging everybody for more cash to feed all the masses coming to be saved. And there's no way the Pope could stomach having the nuclear button on his desk. There's no way the Pope could spend $800 Billion a year on our weapons to keep us safe. Not with all the starving people in the world. Russia and all the tyrant nations would shake the Popes hand and then make plans to take what we have. They would, because tyrants feel the need to take over the world to gain the power to keep control. And that power is guns and violence. And there will come a point when the Pope is no longer giving the orders in our country. And that's why America has separation of church and state. They each do what the other can't do. There are times when you have to check your conscience at the door. Or you can't be a soldier in war.

So the way I see it, conscience is good. But there are times when the ends has to justify the means. Even brutal means. Or we could end up on the loosing end of something very bad. Like being unable to defend against human shields. America has to shoot thru human shields. Because our enemies will use them to destroy our own defenses. If we let them.

Now to justify that, just think of the good you can do after you succeed with all the nasty parts. Then you can see the humanity you can spread, that you can be sure tyrants won't. And that will help good people live with their souless behavior. The Brits used to fight wars the "honorable" way. All lined up in red coats. The height of bravery and honor. The French and Indians just loved it when Brits brought their honor to America. They tore those honorable Brits all up. Till the Brits learned to fight like heathens.
Reply
#18
* This thread has a specific topic. Stick to it or create a new thread or use the void.

1 Topic, 1 Thread.
Reply
#19
how to open a TPB account for free?
Reply
#20
(Jan 30, 2024, 09:32 am)sondo78 Wrote: how to open a TPB account for free?

This is not the right thread or the appropriate place to ask. It's also off-topic, so I'll redirect you to the appropriate sources here and here instead.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  More Russian Weirdness: Kremlin Behind Most Recent Putin Death Rumors CaptButler 8 6,067 Nov 09, 2023, 23:37 pm
Last Post: RobertX
  Ukrainian commander says 80% of professional troops suffered serious injury or death Resurgence 0 6,843 Jun 26, 2022, 00:01 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  Saudi forces tortured seven Yemeni citizens to death with electricity: Report Resurgence 0 5,087 May 14, 2022, 00:21 am
Last Post: Resurgence
  US Covid death toll tops 1 million; WHO says true global toll is 15 million Resurgence 0 4,762 May 05, 2022, 21:28 pm
Last Post: Resurgence
  CDC slashes Covid-19 death tally Resurgence 0 5,516 Mar 19, 2022, 02:24 am
Last Post: Resurgence



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)