Hissene Habre convicted

Yesterday former US-backed Chadian dictator Hissene Habre was sentenced to life-imprisonment. Dubbed the African 'Pinocet,' Habre tortured and killed tens of thousands of politicial opponents in the 1980s. He also carried out ethnic cleansing of native communities, and indulged in sexual slavery. Some estimates put the number of victims at 40,000, with hundreds of thousands more tortured. His favorite methods included burning, gassing and forcing victims to put their mouths to the exhaust pipes of cars with running engines. The CIA helped bring him to power and the Reagan administration sent him millions of dollars of weapons and trained his infamous secret police. Why? Because Habre was the arch-enemy of Muammar Gaddafi, and with US & French support Chad defeated Libya in a border dispute war. Habre's case made history as the first occasion in which an African leader had been tried for crimes against humanity in Africa itself, rather than in an international court in Europe. His trial was held in Senegal, to where he fled after being overthrown in 1990. The conviction came about largely as a result of the tireless efforts of his many, many victims. Habre is now 72-years-old, and unlikely to see the outside of a prison cell again.

Couldn't have been all bad if the USA backed him...

The greatest super power on Earth......The land of the free.......The kings of sport, business and everything else......

The Country that was first to the North Pole...First to the moon......First to host the greatest tea party in the World..

The place where heroes are bred and nurtured......The place which gave birth to Washington, Lincoln, Babe Ruth, Cassius Clay, Deniro, Robert Peary, Kostabi, Edison, Jefferson, Armstrong, Franklin, Eyvind Earle, Hemingway....

The place where dreams are made and lived out under a picturesque sky..........

Yes he couldn't have been all bad being backed by a Country like the USA !!.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Couldn't have been all bad if the USA backed him...I heard France did too but it must have slipped your memory....Never mind hey..

He was backed by....

The greatest super power on Earth......The land of the free.......The kings of sport, business and everything else......

The Country that was first to the North Pole...First to the moon......First to host the greatest tea party in the World..

The place where heroes are bred and nurtured......The place which gave birth to Washington, Lincoln, Babe Ruth, Cassius Clay, Deniro, Robert Peary, Kostabi, Edison, Jefferson, Armstrong, Franklin, Eyvind Earle, Hemingway....

The place where dreams are made and lived out under a picturesque sky..........

Yes he couldn't have been all bad being backed by a Country like the USA !!.

I had Hendrix playing Star Spangled Banner in my head when I was reading that.

I thought the thread was about the monkey that got shot till I read it properly.

All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

No, Tony thinks he IS God.

Maalesef!

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

And you believe that was the posters angle? It was there to inflame, nothing more nothing less.

He could have made his point without the 'white Christian' part.

Is Lionel Bliar a liar?

Good video report here:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/2/an_end_to_impunity_for_dictators

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Couldn't have been all bad if the USA backed him...

The greatest super power on Earth......The land of the free.......The kings of sport, business and everything else......

The Country that was first to the North Pole...First to the moon......First to host the greatest tea party in the World..

The place where heroes are bred and nurtured......The place which gave birth to Washington, Lincoln, Babe Ruth, Cassius Clay, Deniro, Robert Peary, Kostabi, Edison, Jefferson, Armstrong, Franklin, Eyvind Earle, Hemingway....

The place where dreams are made and lived out under a picturesque sky..........

Yes he couldn't have been all bad being backed by a Country like the USA !!.

Damn fine Prose

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

And you believe that was the posters angle?  It was there to inflame, nothing more nothing less.

He could have made his point without the 'white Christian' part.

I'm not bothered. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt given the actuality of Bliar, Bush and, no doubt, many of the others like Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

And you believe that was the posters angle?  It was there to inflame, nothing more nothing less.

He could have made his point without the 'white Christian' part.

I'm not bothered. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt given the actuality of Bliar, Bush and, no doubt, many of the others like Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.

His agenda seeps through most of the stuff he posts.

He p*ssed his pants on the Spanish language thread and waved an Islamaphobia flag, he had a strange post on the New York thread with an unnecessary emoticon. He wrote an entire Israel/rugby thread that was laced with his sentiment and now this. I wish my benefit of the doubt scale was as generous as yours.

I actually love a good WUM, but I prefer ones that are smart enough to hide it better than this chap. Maybe I am just being over sensitive, but I doubt it.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:All jokes aside, this was an important blow for justice in the world. & there ain't too much of that...

Now, if we can only get Bush & Bliar and some of those other white Christian guys up before the judges in the Hague

Try and be a bit more subtle.  

Why? Bliar and Dubya thought they were on a mission from God.

And you believe that was the posters angle?  It was there to inflame, nothing more nothing less.

He could have made his point without the 'white Christian' part.

I'm not bothered. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt given the actuality of Bliar, Bush and, no doubt, many of the others like Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.

Would I get the benefit of the doubt for inflammatory statements about 'blacks' or 'muslims' if couched in loose fact?

Rowanbi is as transparent as Truss.

Bush & Bliar are both self-professed Christians and they're both white. Strange that so many here are quite viciously opposed to quotas to address racism against non-whites in South Africa, yet how precious we suddenly are when it comes to pointing out that the two most notorious war criminals of the century so far are both white and self-professed Christians, and have not been called up to the Hague to answer for their genocidal policies.

Meanwhile, it's good to see justice being served elsewhere this week: Aside from the conviction of former Argentine junta leader/dictator Reynaldo Bignone, mentioned in the above video link, 21 more suspects from the 2002 Gujarat Riots have also been found guilty. There were over 30 convictions a few years ago, though current prime minister Narendra Modi, along with the district police chief, were cleared of charges. Modi was the Chief Minister at the time of the riots and apparently did nothing to try and prevent them. He has even been accused of aiding and abetting them. Hindu mobs killed around 700 Muslims and wounded approximately 2500 more. Some estimates put the death toll at 2500. Raping was widespread, children were burned alive, and looting followed the slaughter. It was all sparked by a fire aboard a train which killed 59 Hindus, for which the entire Muslims community was blamed.

Rowanbi wrote:Bush & Bliar are both self-professed Christians and they're both white. Strange that so many here are quite viciously opposed to quotas to address racism against non-whites in South Africa, yet how precious we suddenly are when it comes to pointing out that the two most notorious war criminals of the century so far are both white and self-professed Christians, and have not been called up to the Hague to answer for their genocidal policies.

Those very naughty white men, not sure what genocidal policies they are but i'm sure they make Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi seem like angels.

Their old pals, you mean? Well, they supported Saddam in his vicious war against Iran and also when he was gassing the Kurds, but then attacked him when he thought he could actually defy the Sykes-Picot plot and take back Kuwait, then starved half a million Iraqi kids with genocidal sanctions, then decided to up and invade his country under false pretences, defying huge international opposition and breaking international law in the process, resulting in over a million deaths, millions more maimed, bereaved, dispossessed and otherwise traumatized, with more long term consequences a country in total ruins, infested by terrorists including ISIS, and a huge tidal wave of refugees into Europe. But let's just call them 'naughty white men' and pretend it's funny...

I did have a massive reply written to you Rowan but no idea if it posted as the network at worst is pants.

Why do we have to turn this into a massive Race issue? there's plenty of Bush's and Blairs across the likes of Africa and the Middle East (look at China too) where authorities and those in charge should have been brought to justice but haven't. What would be your explanation for that? (seriously i'm asking not taking the mick)

I'd like to think that as a country we take as much a stance as we can against percieved wrongdoing and a lot try to right our wrongs, Bush and Blair alas are a step too far unless other countries want to push it, and to do that they'd then have to take into account things wrong that their leaders have done or may do in the future.

What we can do is continue to vilify these men (and women) that bend the people to their will or flat out ignore their people and not belittle it down into what it's not (ie i can't see how it's a racist issue) and trying to do so takes away from the fact that some of these people have done seriously wrong.

A bit like tryign to blame slavery solely on the 'white man' whilst ignoring the fact that many slaves came from indigineous tribes or that slavery is still very much a problem today but more so in middle eastern 'white' countries'

How very defensive you are! Bush and Bliar are adjudged by many to be the biggest war criminals of the century so far, having been responsible for at least a million deaths and all the rest of the carnage from the fallout, which continues today. America is estimated to have killed over 8 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s. And, guess what, not one conviction of any major US official. Amazing! But you'd dismiss this by suggesting there are other nasty people elsewhere. Well, guess what - those ones generally get convicted That's what this thread is supposed to be about; celebrating the fact that a notorious war criminal has finally been brought to justice. But the worst of them haven't.

Do they, i don't remember Papa Doc or his son being arrested, Nigeria's still one of the most corrupt places on this planet (although I believe they have tried to doing something about it). China's widely regarded as breaking every human right known to man. Assad's still in charge in Syria, the middle east still ran primarily along religious lines. Ummm let me see, there's Panama which doesn't look too healthy, and of course Zimbabwe, i'm so glad he was tried for his cri.........................oh wait a minute.

Don't need to be defensive about it, just stating a few facts. It's not a race issue but a world issue, the likes of yourselves that turn it into one (normally for your own ends too (black, white grey or green) can't seem to understand that.

As i said none of the higher ups tend to get convicted, it's not a problem unique to the West but a problem in the general world.

But you left out most of those who America supports, among them the very worst of war criminals, such as the Saudi regime, the Israeli government and the latest military dictatorship in Egypt. & by comparison to the imperialist leadership of the United States and its faithful sidekick Britain, those you have mentioned are small fry. The NATO-Saud-Israel war on Syria has already killed far more people than Assad had during his lengthy reign. Papa Doc was US-backed, btw. So you have a very selective brand of morality, to say the least. I began this thread to celebrate the conviction of Hissene Habre, also US-backed, which was an all-too-rare blow for human rights. I went on to post a video which also mentioned the conviction of Reynaldo Bignone in Argentina, and also wrote about the convictions of Hindus involved in the Gujarat Riots and wholesale massacres of Muslims. That I observed along the way that it was a pity white Christians such as Bush & Blair hadn't been brought to justice, despite being by most estimates the biggest war criminals of the century so far, really oughtn't to have offended anyone with a balance perspective on international affairs.

Some people claim that Turkey has been doing its own slaughtering and repression of ethnic Kurds both in the Kurdish regions that Turkey occupies as well as across their borders.  It is also claimed that war criminals occupy high office in Turkey.  Maybe someone could look into it and report back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Kurdistan
"The incorporation into Turkey of the Kurdish-inhabited regions of eastern Anatolia was opposed by many Kurds, and has resulted in a long-running separatist conflict in which thousands of lives have been lost. The region saw several major Kurdish rebellions during the 1920s and 1930s. These were forcefully put down by the Turkish authorities and the region was declared a closed military area from which foreigners were banned between 1925 and 1965. The use of Kurdish language was outlawed, the words Kurds and Kurdistan were erased from dictionaries and history books, and the Kurds were only referred to as Mountain Turks. In 1983, a number of provinces were placed under martial law in response to the activities of ..."

ps Thanks for the information on Hissene Habre - it's not something that gets much coverage on the BBC.

Seems to me Rowan that instead of celebrating something that's right your trying to push your own agenda and turn this into an issue it's not. Something that seems prevalent these days across the internet and tends to involve people desperately trying to look like they're standing up for something that isn't there.

So basically what your saying is that the world should ignore going after war criminals unless they have them in some sort of league with numbers of victims etc (not forgetting the all important colour of their skin) and their religion and not forget to point this out at every occasion.

As I stated and you blatantly ignored, war crimes have been ignored at all levels by all colours for many many years and will continue to be done.

It's good for people to highlight these issues especially for lesser known criminals as the above, bet lets not be thinking it's got anything to do with the colour of Bush's and Blairs skin that they've got away with it, more because they were leaders (at the time) of 2 big countries that have influence on the world and as i said above (whilst i dislike conspiricies as onetwo will tell you ;-) ) other leaders will be wary of chasing them down in case something similar happens to them.

Rowanbi wrote:Bush & Bliar are both self-professed Christians and they're both white. Strange that so many here are quite viciously opposed to quotas to address racism against non-whites in South Africa, yet how precious we suddenly are when it comes to pointing out that the two most notorious war criminals of the century so far are both white and self-professed Christians, and have not been called up to the Hague to answer for their genocidal policies.

I'd say the Turkish genocide of Armenians was worse.....

So basically what your saying is that the world should ignore going after war criminals unless they have them in some sort of league with numbers of victims etc (not forgetting the all important colour of their skin) and their religion and not forget to point this out at every occasion.

That took quite an imagination to misconstrue my comments so wildly. In fact, all I said, quite simply, was that is was a shame the biggest war criminals of this century have not been brought to justice, and it is no co-incidence that they just happen to be white Christians. We are seeing dictators brought to justice in Africa and Latin America, along with Hindu rebels in India. But estimates put the number of Muslims killed by American led wars and sanctions since the beginning of the 1990s at 8 million. This has now surpassed the death toll of America's combined wars in South East Asia during the previous few decades. Since World War II the US is estimated to have killed well over 20 million people with its wars, covert operations and the genocidal sanctions in Iraq. Britain has supported them every step of the way. But not a solitary conviction. No Briton was ever convicted for the crimes in Kenya and India either, and some of those old dodders are still around, you know. If we can hunt down Nazis, we can certainly hunt down those responsible for the gulag in East Africa and the famine in Bangladesh. Churchill should be regarded as one of the great monsters of history, alongside Hitler, Stalin, Kennedy, Nixon, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Sharon and Reagan. You guys are preaching to the converted with your comments about Turkey, but the last-mentioned event occurred a century ago, so why don't we just start talking about the genocides in North America, Australia and New Zealand while we're at it? So let's get back to the present, where American-backed wars and covert operations have killed millions across the Middle East, wounded, bereaved, dispossessed and otherwise traumatized millions more, created a refugee tidal wave, and destroyed entire nations beyond repair. Yet not a solitary politician brought to justice.

Rowanbi wrote: Churchill should be regarded as one of the great monsters of history

He took part in the last successful British cavalry charge. What a bloody hero.

Dashingly handsome as a young man as well.

Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

No, I don't think Stalin was in the same cavalry charge.

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

You are a tool of the highest order, can only presume you consider Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity, yes lots of innocent people died during WW2 as they do during every war but would you have done in his position, wilted in the face of the fascist onslaught or retaliate in kind. The original blitz attack may have been a mistake by the Luftwaffe but it was war, millions of people the world over were dying.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Rowanbi wrote:
I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

You were saying?

Rowanbi wrote:

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives

Shortened the war? Possibly. Won the war? Nope, that was a combination of things too in depth to list. It's far too simplistic to say they 'won'.

You're reaching now. You've been exposed and you're reaching.

I'm going to use a really old cliche here but I genuinely don't think anybody wins a war, the cost of life was over 60 million, do tell me who benefited from that.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Bush & Bliar are both self-professed Christians and they're both white. Strange that so many here are quite viciously opposed to quotas to address racism against non-whites in South Africa, yet how precious we suddenly are when it comes to pointing out that the two most notorious war criminals of the century so far are both white and self-professed Christians, and have not been called up to the Hague to answer for their genocidal policies.

I'd say the Turkish genocide of Armenians was worse.....

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Didn't your lot do that too?

Turks have long been killed of war crimes against the Kurds, as well as the Armenians......

#supportPKK

Rowanbi - This Habre guy committed the majority of these atrocities in the 80's, and was only sentenced last week - 30yrs later.

At least give Blair and Bush the same amount of time before suggesting there's some kind of racial bias. If they still haven't faced trial by 2031, i'll concede you may have a point.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Didn't your lot do that too?

Turks have long been killed of war crimes against the Kurds, as well as the Armenians......

#supportPKK

Already mentioned you're preaching to the converted on the latter issue. But isn't that just pointing the finger elsewhere? Btw, just watched an interesting documentary by Australian journalist John Pilger on US/UK support for the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the genocide. Toward the end it quotes the Thatcher government as stating '8 million lives were expendable.'

The desire to have wars and to win them are, I'm afraid, proof of evolution.  

Good guys? - bad guys? White hat? - Black hat?  Which is which?
That's the propaganda bit, and we all know that propaganda is relative to where you live and whether you won or lost.

The only truth is that being violent towards each other is in our very genes and those are virtually as ancient as the world itself.  Unfortunately, nature knows more about the planet than our conscious brains do.  Nature commands that we always form our tribes (whether they be streets, cities, districts, races, languages, fashion sense or, indeed, sexuality) - and Nature commands that we struggle to be better, stronger, faster, wealthier, more influential than the other tribes.

War happens.  It's happening all the time.  It'll happen again in places it's not currently happening in - and terrible things will be done in the name of both 'war' and in the name of 'peace'.

The occupation of Kurdish territory by Turkey is a current issue.  The repression of the Kurds by Turkey is a current issue.  There is good evidence of war criminals in Turkey (example):
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc5_1396652390
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36354742

Here is a report on the current repression of academics in Turkey who signed a petition against Turkish war on the Kurds:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-reached-new-levels-of-journalist-repression-yet-the-eu-willingly-lets-itself-be-fooled-a6944501.html

Basically Turkey is as bad, if not worse, than anyone else.

Not white Christian though so escape Rowan's ire.....

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Done with you. I gave you the benefit originally, but clearly Tino(?) was correct, above. You're a fool. You're doing the usual cr@p and applying 21st century ethics to 19th/early 20th century conflicts.

The Soviets didn't "win" the war, anymore than the British, Americans etc did. If you can actually read what I said, instead of twist to fit your own agenda, I said that it was a team effort and the Soviets were a part of that. They had stuff all to do with the war in the Pacific, stuff all to do with Africa and Italy etc. Britain actually helped the Soviets stay afloat before the tide turned against Hitler's Barbarossa campaign with all those lovely selfish jaunts up the North Atlantic coast and via the Barents Sea, supplying the Soviet Union with arms and food etc. All the while being hunted by German U-Boats etc.

Re. Dresden - well, again, by today's standards, doesn't look that pleasant, but that's what you get for prosecuting a war the way the Nazis did I'm afraid. Grow up.

Re. ANZACs, I think I'm right in saying that more British were killed there than ANZACs, but you go on and make up the facts to suit your own narrative. Churchill didn't, as you imply, use the ANZACs as shock troops so British forces were spared what happened there.

Gas was used by many in the past. I seriously doubt Churchill would advocate or accept its use today.

As for the Kurds, don't make me laugh. How dare you raise that when Turkey's vindictive and murderous behaviour towards the Kurds is still going on today. Talk about a hypocrite!

Re. India, again, you're applying 21st century morals to 1950s, at the latest, behaviour. Frankly, your hatred of 'white, Christians' IN the 21st century (i.e. now) says a lot more to me than Churchill et als behaviour in the past and your last line re. the British Empire shows you for what you really are. At least we're clear now on your position and mindset. Enjoy your increasingly radical Theocracy in Turkey .

You feel the need to point out certain skin colours but not the others = racist in my book. Either way, don't think you understand global issues and would rather point fingers willy nilly.

Last thoughts from me.

Doesn't it seem to take a hell of a long time to convict war criminals, even finding them takes forever and in some cases nothing seems to be pushed (Zimbabwe i'm looking at you)

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:Exactly. The Russians still revere Stalin as well. That's the guy who really won WWII, much as the British and Americans have scrambled to take all the credit exclusively for themselves, demonized everyone else and pushed forth their own bloodthirsty war criminals as "heroes."

Now you're just being silly. Sure, the U.S.S.R. was an instrumental part, but they were only one part and had no/little part in the wider global parts of WWII. Also, minor point, but Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people at home.

The Soviets won the war at a cost of 20 million lives and the British and Americans scrambled to take all the credit for it themselves. No, Churchill and Eisenhower didn't murder millions of their own people, they murdered millions of people in other countries instead. So that's alright then  

Churchill a war criminal because he was a 'privileged white christian', we'll ignore how he inspired a nation against the greatest evil the world has ever seen. Not everyone involved in war is guilty of crimes against humanity,

I don't regard him as a war criminal because he was a white Christian at all. I regard him as a war criminal because he machine-gunned the Sudanese, threw the ANZACs at the Turks, gassed the Kurds and Arabs, firebombed Dresden, starved the Bengalis, professed to hatred of Indians, and helped overthrow Iran's first democratic government, among many other horrific crimes against humanity. Due to his race and religion, however, he is revered in his homeland as a 'hero.'

& the greatest evil the world has ever seen was the British Empire, very clearly.

Done with you. I gave you the benefit originally, but clearly Tino(?) was correct, above. You're a fool. You're doing the usual cr@p and applying 21st century ethics to 19th/early 20th century conflicts.

The Soviets didn't "win" the war, anymore than the British, Americans etc did. If you can actually read what I said, instead of twist to fit your own agenda, I said that it was a team effort and the Soviets were a part of that. They had stuff all to do with the war in the Pacific, stuff all to do with Africa and Italy etc. Britain actually helped the Soviets stay afloat before the tide turned against Hitler's Barbarossa campaign with all those lovely selfish jaunts up the North Atlantic coast and via the Barents Sea, supplying the Soviet Union with arms and food etc. All the while being hunted by German U-Boats etc.

Re. Dresden - well, again, by today's standards, doesn't look that pleasant, but that's what you get for prosecuting a war the way the Nazis did I'm afraid. Grow up.

Re. ANZACs, I think I'm right in saying that more British were killed there than ANZACs, but you go on and make up the facts to suit your own narrative. Churchill didn't, as you imply, use the ANZACs as shock troops so British forces were spared what happened there.

Gas was used by many in the past. I seriously doubt Churchill would advocate or accept its use today.

As for the Kurds, don't make me laugh. How dare you raise that when Turkey's vindictive and murderous behaviour towards the Kurds is still going on today. Talk about a hypocrite!

Re. India, again, you're applying 21st century morals to 1950s, at the latest, behaviour. Frankly, your hatred of 'white, Christians' IN the 21st century (i.e. now) says a lot more to me than Churchill et als behaviour in the past and your last line re. the British Empire shows you for what you really are. At least we're clear now on your position and mindset. Enjoy your increasingly radical Theocracy in Turkey .

Dresden was revenge, pure and simple. Have you read Slaughterhouse 5, by any chance? Like Hiroshima & Nagasaki it was totally unnecessary and entirely symbolic, designed to send a message and ward off the USSR and the post-war era. To that end, many millions of innocent children, women and men died most horrific deaths.

Yes, more British and French died at Gallipoli than Anzacs. Congratulations. Invading other countries isn't always as easy as the British would like it to be, and they well and truly beaten there, at the cost of many young men's lives. Incidentally, the Turks lost more than the allied forces collectively, and they were only defending their homeland.

If you don't know that Churchill used chemical weapons against the Kurds in northern Iraq, then you don't know much at all. He also used them against the Russians, according to one of Britain's own leading newspapers: http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

As for applying 21st century principles to the 1950s, that's a fine cop-out, but I'm not the one applying 21st century principles to the 1910s, as are those so gleefully bringing up the Armenian massacres (which I'm probably far better informed on than anyone else here).

The desire to have wars and to win them are, I'm afraid, proof of evolution.  

So you're an apologist for genocidal warfare then? Ok, you're entitled to your opinion, but this perhaps the wrong thread for you.

Basically Turkey is as bad, if not worse, than anyone else.

Not white Christian though so escape Rowan's ire.....

Sorry to so gravely disappoint you, but I've already commented a number of times that you are preaching to the converted on this issue. Is there some part of that sentence you don't understand?

You feel the need to point out certain skin colours but not the others = racist in my book

& then he brings up Zimbabwe.

Perhaps you should use a few more emoticons?       Really drive that point home.

Look princess, you've been exposed for what you are.  Not just on this thread but on the others I mentioned way back when.

You are what you are and enough of us spotted it early.  You're not smart enough to hide it.

Take this as a lesson, come back under a different name, and try harder.

You can thank me some other time.

So you're out of arguments, in other words.

Rowanbi wrote:So you're out of arguments, in other words.

I exposed you first, flower.