>>>With all due respect, Sir, in this case the old lady was wrong. Because these kind of penal research and trials do not fall under common law, but more under Murphy's Laws, somehow like Franz Kafka's Trial. ~Best regards, Ovidius<<<
I should have put an exclamation mark behind that. because that is EXACTLY what I meant. On that point indeed she WAS wrong. may she rest in peace.
As for MONEY ? My feelings are that in order to keep financing coming for the numerous jewish holocaust memorials and the upkeep of the Wiesenthal centers, the story, or history whatever you wish to name it, must be kept alive; and what a better way than to find "yet another one of those old nazis". Wonder what they are going to do after all of them have bit the dust; go after their kids ? :roll: Anyway, 100 years from now no one will remember it with any emotion anymore, other than perhaps in Passover rituals.. Regards HN
Hunting the old men.
Can I ask a question which may be slightly off topic? ( I dont want to send this thread in the wrong direction and get it locked ).
Some years ago, I had to apply for a visa to the US to teach a course in Dallas. The application form was concerned almost totaly with my 'Nazi' connections. Questions like:
Did you ever work for the German government during the years 1935-1945?
Did you commit or participate in acts of genocide?
Were you ever a member of the National Socialist Party of Germany?
I would have thought these days they would be looking for Terrorists or Communists.
But the 'Killer' for me was the last sentence:
'Answering yes to any of these questions does not necessarily mean....'
:roll:
Can anyone tell me why in ( then ) 1998 they are still looking for Nazis?.
Anyway as it was I ended up in Brazil ( is that Freudian slip or what )
Again, I know this is a topic that can get out of hand , so please gentlemen.
regards David E M.
Some years ago, I had to apply for a visa to the US to teach a course in Dallas. The application form was concerned almost totaly with my 'Nazi' connections. Questions like:
Did you ever work for the German government during the years 1935-1945?
Did you commit or participate in acts of genocide?
Were you ever a member of the National Socialist Party of Germany?
I would have thought these days they would be looking for Terrorists or Communists.
But the 'Killer' for me was the last sentence:
'Answering yes to any of these questions does not necessarily mean....'
:roll:
Can anyone tell me why in ( then ) 1998 they are still looking for Nazis?.
Anyway as it was I ended up in Brazil ( is that Freudian slip or what )
Again, I know this is a topic that can get out of hand , so please gentlemen.
regards David E M.
Thankyou Jim:
Although I have read interesting view points and learned finer points of the law pertaining to the subject a most respected friend gave me something
so simple to ponder!
"Why does not forgiveness apply to non-semites?"
Annelie
Perhaps the short view of these actions are they just old fashioned revenge on the part of SOME Americans Jews.
Although I have read interesting view points and learned finer points of the law pertaining to the subject a most respected friend gave me something
so simple to ponder!
"Why does not forgiveness apply to non-semites?"
Annelie
The use of the word Nazi
The terms "Nazi war criminal", "Nazi war crime" and "Nazi criminal" are often used.
In my opinion these terms are used somewhat unjustly.
These terms immediately equate the word Nazi with evil and devious connotations.
Sure some Nazi's were war criminals (and bad ones at that) but just because someone was / is a Nazi does not immediately make then a war criminal.
A war criminal is a war criminal because of their actions, not their political or social beliefs.
A war crime is a war crime because of an action or incident not because of an ideology.
In modern times people equate the term "Nazi" with white power, racism and skinheads.
This is a misnomer.
Nazism was a political belief and like all political beliefs it had / has its bad aspects and good aspects.
The facts should always be the deciding point and not the hysteria that is now associated with a word.
In my opinion these terms are used somewhat unjustly.
These terms immediately equate the word Nazi with evil and devious connotations.
Sure some Nazi's were war criminals (and bad ones at that) but just because someone was / is a Nazi does not immediately make then a war criminal.
A war criminal is a war criminal because of their actions, not their political or social beliefs.
A war crime is a war crime because of an action or incident not because of an ideology.
In modern times people equate the term "Nazi" with white power, racism and skinheads.
This is a misnomer.
Nazism was a political belief and like all political beliefs it had / has its bad aspects and good aspects.
The facts should always be the deciding point and not the hysteria that is now associated with a word.
I fail to see what your point is. "Nazi war crimes" are just what they are: warcrimes by nazis.
Just like "Dutch warcrimes" are warcrimes by Dutch. There's no need to speak of "warcrimes committed by some nazis who are an exeption as most nazis are no criminals", just like its nonsense to speak of "warcrimes committed by a minority of criminals among the otherwise non-criminal Dutch".
Nazi warcrimes are as such the crimes by those who committed them and the Nazi government (regime) was responsible for these crimes. Just like the Russian government is responsible for crimes committed by their troops in whatever war they fight and the American government for theirs, and so on.
As for "hysteria": Nazism is/was far from just a political believe. The German citizen can claim they didn't know about the crimes, but they agreed with shaping the political climate that made them possible. No Jews, Gypsies, mentally handicaped or other minorities will ever fall victim to a group of people who say "they deserve to live in our midst".
Good and bad sides to Nazism okay, but whatever good they did is overclassed by their evil deeds: total destruction of their own and many other European countries, attempted destruction of the Jews and the death of millions of European citizen and a lot more.
Just like "Dutch warcrimes" are warcrimes by Dutch. There's no need to speak of "warcrimes committed by some nazis who are an exeption as most nazis are no criminals", just like its nonsense to speak of "warcrimes committed by a minority of criminals among the otherwise non-criminal Dutch".
Nazi warcrimes are as such the crimes by those who committed them and the Nazi government (regime) was responsible for these crimes. Just like the Russian government is responsible for crimes committed by their troops in whatever war they fight and the American government for theirs, and so on.
As for "hysteria": Nazism is/was far from just a political believe. The German citizen can claim they didn't know about the crimes, but they agreed with shaping the political climate that made them possible. No Jews, Gypsies, mentally handicaped or other minorities will ever fall victim to a group of people who say "they deserve to live in our midst".
Good and bad sides to Nazism okay, but whatever good they did is overclassed by their evil deeds: total destruction of their own and many other European countries, attempted destruction of the Jews and the death of millions of European citizen and a lot more.
Why prosecute old men? To send young men a sign.
One of the questions being asked here is "Why are these prosecutions taking place now"? One factor here is the fall of the iron curtain. With files and witnesses previously locked away in soviet archives now available, prosecutors now have more evidence. There were agreements between Soviet and western governments to share information about war crimes, but this didn't always work the way it should have done, and also in East European and Baltic states people may have been reluctant to provide information to Soviet authorities, not out of sympathy for Nazis and their collaborators, but simply due to a resentment of the Soviet regime, which many considered no more legitimate than the Nazi one.
But another explanation would be to say that the crimes and the criminals are not only important in their own right, but also in what they signify. The attempts at genocide in the nineties (Jugoslavija, Rwanda, etc) had to be met with something, and by continuing to prosecute those responsible for previous crimes (be they Nazis, Stasi, Pinochet or whoever) society hopes to send a message to those planning crimes against humanity in the future; "Don't do it, because we will not forget". Like all deterrents, one may question its effectiveness. But it has to be there. If we weren't prosecuting people accused of Genocide fifty years ago, we'd be collaborating in crimes taking place today and tomorrow, by giving the impression that the guilty may find a safe haven one day.
But another explanation would be to say that the crimes and the criminals are not only important in their own right, but also in what they signify. The attempts at genocide in the nineties (Jugoslavija, Rwanda, etc) had to be met with something, and by continuing to prosecute those responsible for previous crimes (be they Nazis, Stasi, Pinochet or whoever) society hopes to send a message to those planning crimes against humanity in the future; "Don't do it, because we will not forget". Like all deterrents, one may question its effectiveness. But it has to be there. If we weren't prosecuting people accused of Genocide fifty years ago, we'd be collaborating in crimes taking place today and tomorrow, by giving the impression that the guilty may find a safe haven one day.
I agree as regarding the Jews and Gypsies, but the mentally handicapped are a different story, because we can't predict how the discussions on legalizing the euthanasia will endTimo wrote:No Jews, Gypsies, mentally handicaped or other minorities will ever fall victim to a group of people who say "they deserve to live in our midst".
8) Destruction of Germany and of the other Axis countries can't be considered the fault of the "Nazi"(term which I don't agree) regime, as long as it was brought in by the Allies, for purposes only remotely related to war effort(i.e. Dresden had no military targets, and in other cities the strategic targets were easily distinguishable). Of course, the allies had to be right; after all, they won, and they put the entire country to "Victors' Justice", didn't they?Timo wrote:Good and bad sides to Nazism okay, but whatever good they did is overclassed by their evil deeds: total destruction of their own and many other European countries, attempted destruction of the Jews and the death of millions of European citizen and a lot more.
~Ovidius(aka Oblivious and other pretty nicknames, which don't change the unpleasant truth)
Strange. Something tells me the destruction of Germany was caused by a war started by the Nazis. Hence this allied warcrime was provoked by the Nazis, who managed to lead the way in showing the Russians how to rape a country and the other allies how to destroy a city from the air.Oblivious wrote:Destruction of Germany and of the other Axis countries can't be considered the fault of the "Nazi
Greetings from Amsterdam (close to Rotterdam)
ps:
You're a weird guy. What are you trying to imply? Do you know a country that is on a course set for legalising the killing of handicaped?I agree as regarding the Jews and Gypsies, but the mentally handicapped are a different story, because we can't predict how the discussions on legalizing the euthanasia will end
Well, I can think of a country which was the first in the world to legalize something Christianity has considered a sin for the last two millenia, but the last elections showed a tilt towards sanity.You're a weird guy. What are you trying to imply? Do you know a country that is on a course set for legalising the killing of handicaped
With one big important point:
If you're a healty person you can kill yourself (like it or not, thats the truth). Our laws say, if one wants to die we allow one to die if suffering is pointless. Christianity denies ones free will to die if one wants to. That is inhumane. No being (humans or animals) should be forced to suffer against their will. None of our laws allow people who did not explicitely say they want to die, to be killed. Thats why our society will never hurt a handicaped. Its just an act of mercy towards people who have the will to die but don't have the physical ability to do it themselves. Suggesting that these laws will result in the killing of people who don't have the will to die is simply absurde, as is the suggestion that we will ever legally allow such things.
Lets put it this way: you're in horrible physical pain each and every day, from a illness that can't be cured. You know you will die from this illness within a year. Why should one be forced to live in that pain for 12 more months even if you decided for yourself that you don't want such a live? We are talking about people here who begged their doctors to end their suffering as they don't have the physical ability to do it themselves.
And now that we're talking: why should a government be allowed to take ones live (the death penalty), yet on the other hand be allowed to deny ones right to want to die?
You talk about our elections but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Euthanesia was no issue in the campaign for the last elections.
If you're a healty person you can kill yourself (like it or not, thats the truth). Our laws say, if one wants to die we allow one to die if suffering is pointless. Christianity denies ones free will to die if one wants to. That is inhumane. No being (humans or animals) should be forced to suffer against their will. None of our laws allow people who did not explicitely say they want to die, to be killed. Thats why our society will never hurt a handicaped. Its just an act of mercy towards people who have the will to die but don't have the physical ability to do it themselves. Suggesting that these laws will result in the killing of people who don't have the will to die is simply absurde, as is the suggestion that we will ever legally allow such things.
Lets put it this way: you're in horrible physical pain each and every day, from a illness that can't be cured. You know you will die from this illness within a year. Why should one be forced to live in that pain for 12 more months even if you decided for yourself that you don't want such a live? We are talking about people here who begged their doctors to end their suffering as they don't have the physical ability to do it themselves.
And now that we're talking: why should a government be allowed to take ones live (the death penalty), yet on the other hand be allowed to deny ones right to want to die?
You talk about our elections but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Euthanesia was no issue in the campaign for the last elections.
Last edited by Timo on 02 Jun 2002, 15:42, edited 1 time in total.
After this post, we can continue by PM. Human life is sacred. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man must his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." Yes, you can't kill yourself, for you are made in the image of the Divine. No, you can't kill others, but must be killed yourself, if you murder someone made in the image of the Divine. This includes, from a theological point (not a legal one) people who assist with euthanasia. They are murderers.
Well, I prefer helping a friend in need who want to die instead of being a christian hypocrite who denies him peace. I wish you well, but I am curious to your thoughts will you ever be in the situation that your pain is incurable and unbearable. The true crime is to let people suffer for the sake of some ancient fairytales.
As I said to Timo, we can continue using PM, so this will be my last reply to you here.viriato wrote:Dan wrote:
This is not so. The Ten Commandments say "thou shall not kill". Retribution is not included.No, you can't kill others, but must be killed yourself, if you murder someone made in the image of the Divine.
You are wrong. The Bible demands the death penalty for about 9 offences. If the Bible demands the death penalty for premeditated murder, and you claim the Ten Commandments forbid the death penalty, then you are saying there is a contradiction in the Bible, so you shouldn't use it as a source.
Best
Dan
off topic, but
My understanding that "though shall not kill" was actually a translation error, that the meaning is "Thou shall not murder".