< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8744 OF 8744 ·
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna:> <Your only reason for saying he was innocent was that he died before being tried.>|
Is that what I said? No, it wasn't.
Again, the ruling as follows..
“the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan”
The plan, for avoidance of doubt, was genocide.
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: And I repeat: That was one case. Other cases were never brought.|
Because he was dead.
|Sep-27-16|| ||perfidious: <WorstPlayerEver: <Colonel Mortimer>|
Of course, do you really think celebrities have something cultural to offer? I wonder what.>
One thought comes to mind when thinking of Kim Kartrashian and the term culture.....
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: Used to be all these "celebrities" existed so there would be enough people to go on TV game shows. Now "celebrities" are created to fill all the roles on reality shows.|
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <saffuna: And I repeat: That was one case. Other cases were never brought.>|
After being cleared of war crimes and genocide in Bosnia, the most serious of the charges brought against him, the other 2 charges paled in comparison.
Besides that was what the Americans were banging on about - the shiite he did in Bosnia, and they were wrong.
Quite convenient that Milosevic died before the end of the trial - it would have been embarrassing for the Americans to have painted him as such a monster and justification for their bombing of civilians, when he turned out to be innocent.
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: <Quite convenient that Milosevic died before the end of the trial>|
I see no proof he would have been found innocent.
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Safuna> <I see no proof he would have been found innocent.>|
You're getting your tenses mixed up. He was found innocent of war crimes and genocide in Bosnia.
That's a fact.
You can speculate about other stuff if you want, but not on this the most important of the accusations leveled against him.
|Sep-27-16|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Yeah, but the court of The Hague is a hoax. The Hague is a hoax on its own. The so called Dutch government has settled there. As does the Dutch king. Not completely a coincedence... the Dutch are a monarchy FYI|
Ever heard of 'The League of Nations'?
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: I don't know if it means much, but when the debate ended Trump stayed on the stage and talked with his family while Hillary went down to the audience and began greeting people.|
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: It's not lack of evidence that prevents Bush and Blair from standing trial at the ICC.|
Some Nazis were hung for lesser crimes.
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: In defending his claim that he opposed the Iraq War before it started, he claimed he had said that to Sean Hannity many times.|
I would think the tapes of those conversations would be out by now. But it turns out those were <private> conversations, not broadcast.
That doesn't seem to pass muster, especially since Hannity is his #1 booster today, and would back up Trump on anything.
|Sep-27-16|| ||Abdel Irada: ∞
This interview gives the clearest in-depth view of the Syrian conflict I've seen to date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV...
(Yes, <al wazir> and <Hmm>, this means you're about to be confronted with something you'd risk breaking your "patriotic" conditioning by watching. How much of a risk breaking conditioning can be, however, I doubt you will ever dare to test for yourselves.)
|Sep-27-16|| ||Abdel Irada: ∞
<saffuna: Trump on his disaster:
"My mic was faulty."
Yeah, it was turned on.>
That happened to Richard Nixon once, and it led to an interesting family story.
My mother's rock-ribbed conservative uncle and aunt were visiting her parents one day, watching Nixon give a televised speech.
At the end of the speech, Nixon (who thought his microphone was off) began emitting a string of colorful expletives.
My grandparents laughed.
My great-uncle stood up and said, "They have *concentration camps* for people like you!" He then turned on his heel, gathered up his wife, marched out of the house, and drove away, never to return.
(My great-aunt finally reconciled with my grandmother — her older sister — after his death, but never did quite make peace with my grandfather.)
This gives you an idea of how much civil discourse has degenerated since those days of yore when there was no polarization between right and left in America.
|Sep-27-16|| ||al wazir: <Abdel Irada: Not explicitly, for the most part.> No, not EVER.|
<But the effect is the same if you merely first inform the forum that you have a PhD in physics, and then proceed to marginalize opposing opinions on matters of science (GMOs, water fluoridation, etc.)> I have never cited my physics degrees to justify any opinion I have expressed about a topic in another field. Not EVER.
<calling your interlocutors Luddites or saying their opinions are "anti-science."> "Luddites" is a jeer, a figurative expression of disparagement. I didn't mean it to imply that those I so designate are literal followers of Ned Ludd or go around breaking industrial machinery. ("Ned Ludd" was the imagined leader of a real rebellion, possibly based on an actual individual, but certainly fictionalized.) But "anti-science" is accurate in the contexts where I have used it. It labels persons who reject scientific reasoning, scientific results, and, more generally, rational conclusions drawn from evidence.
I don't look down on people who lack a graduate degree. Physicist Freeman Dyson, one of the smartest people I've ever known, a polymath whom I admire greatly, never got a PhD. Most of the kibitzers who post here have never revealed their backgrounds. I evaluate their opinions and the propositions they assert as fact based on the available evidence and the arguments advanced to support them, not on their educational credentials, and they treat mine the same way.
Emulate them. Try to get over your obsession with criticizing me as an individual and focus on the content of what I post.
|Sep-27-16|| ||al wazir: <Colonel Mortimer>: Here's what I found when I looked at the first footnote in your link (http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzi...), on page 2537:|
<Case No. IT-95-5/18-T2537
24 March 2016
VI. DISPOSITION 6071.
For all of the foregoing reasons, pursuant to Articles 23, 24, and 27 of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules 98 ter, 101, 102, and 103 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Chamber finds the Accused, Radovan Karadžić:
• NOT GUILTY of COUNT 1: genocide.
• GUILTY of the following counts:
COUNT 2: genocide;
COUNT 3: persecution, a crime against humanity;
COUNT 4: extermination, a crime against humanity;
COUNT 5: murder, a crime against humanity;
COUNT 6: murder, a violation of the laws or customs of war;
COUNT 7: deportation, a crime against humanity;
COUNT 8: inhumane acts–forcible transfer, a crime against humanity;
COUNT 9: terror, a violation of the laws or customs of war;
COUNT 10: unlawful attacks on civilians, a violation of the laws or customs of war; and
COUNT 11: hostage-taking, a violation of the laws or customs of war.
The Chamber hereby sentences the Accused, Radovan Karadžić, to a single sentence of 40 years of imprisonment. The Accused has been in
custody since 21 July 2008; and, pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules, he is entitled to credit for time spent in detention thus far.>
Your post was a LIE of Trumpian magnitude!
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: <The Trial Chamber did not in fact make any determination of guilt with respect to Milosevic in its verdict against Karadzic. Indeed, Milosevic was not charged or accused in the Karadzic case. The fact that a person is, or is not, found to be part of a joint criminal enterprise in a case in which he is not charged has no impact on the status of his own case or his own criminal responsibility.|
In short, the trial against Karadzic was against him and him only, and therefore has no impact on the separate case against Slobodan Milosevic. Karadzic, meanwhile, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide, in case Clark has any reservations about Karadzic's role in the Balkan wars. >
|Sep-27-16|| ||Shams: <saffuna> <Trump on his disaster:
"My mic was faulty."
Yeah, it was turned on.>
My favorite Groucho one-liner: "I didn't like the play, but then I saw it under adverse conditions. The curtain was up."
|Sep-27-16|| ||al wazir: <This weekend, the New York Times surprised no one by officially endorsing Hillary Clinton for President of the United States, joining nearly every other major American newspaper in recommending Clinton. |
But one California newspaper went against the blue tide by boldly endorsing Donald Trump for President.
That paper? The already controversial Santa Barbara News-Press.
Politico pointed out the California anomaly in its Monday morning newsletter. Not only is it Trump's only endorsement from a California paper, it's one of the few anywhere in the nation. So far, he's gotten official endorsements from the National Enquirer, New York Observer and New York Post.
Clinton has been endorsed by over 80 newspapers across the country.> http://www.sfgate.com/politics/arti...
|Sep-27-16|| ||cormier: Gospel: "Jesus, the face determined, took the road to Jerusalem"|
|Sep-27-16|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
|Sep-27-16|| ||HeMateMe: Trump mentioned last night, as a quick aside, something about the NY Times being unreliable, or biased, I forget exactly what he said. It was lost in the main clutter of the food fight.|
<mort> still supports terrorists.
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <al wazir> <Your post was a LIE of Trumpian magnitude!>|
Wasn't talking about Karadžić. Thought that was quite obvious.
The usual al wazirean dishonesty on full display with this whopper.
|Sep-27-16|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <Saffuna> Your link is a partisan blog hosted on the Radio Liberty website (formally a CIA controlled anti Soviet propaganga outlet, now funded by Congress as an anti Russian propaganda outlet) and adds no new information to the ICTY trial chamber finding that there was insufficient evidence to link Milosevic to Bosnian war crimes/genocide.|
To see what I mean by 'partisan' here's an excerpt among many in the Liberty Radio blog piece you linked to..
<This creeping rehabilitation of Milosevic and his regime in Serbia is being abetted by outside forces with their own agendas, whether anti-NATO, pro-Russian, or reckless indulgence of conspiracy theories -- like the Texas-based Ron Paul Institute, which helped carry the invented news on Milosevic's "exoneration.">
This isn't credible journalism, it's firebrand propaganda. Far worse than the 'bias' you accuse me of.
|Sep-27-16|| ||zanzibar: <Colonel Mortimer: <Saffuna> No wonder you don't know much about what is going on in Syria.>|
Does anybody know what's really going on in Syria?
I suppose Assad and the Russians have the correct version?
<No doubt it has occurred to senior American officials—none of whom are stupid—that Russian demands for collaboration might not be entirely sincere. Whenever the United States objected to the Russian habit of citing a Nusra Front presence as an excuse for bombing civilian hospitals, Moscow would respond by blaming Washington for not sharing intelligence on potential targets. >
One is free to pick the disinformation of their choice, at least on this forum.
|Sep-27-16|| ||saffuna: I see. It's an RT of the other side.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 8744 OF 8744 ·