Comments by "Mat Broomfield" (@matbroomfield) on "98-Year-Old Charged for Nazi War Crimes" video.

  1. Agree totally. The only disappointing thing is, the trial will likely kill him.
    2
  2. At no point have I said anything worthy of ridicule by a reasonable minded person. You may disagree with what I say, and that's fine, but your constant desire to win by making childish insults is deeply revealing of your insecurity. It's a pity that you can't have a grown up conversation though - it's a subject worthy of debate. I'll leave you now to insult others to bolster your need for hollow victory. Your damaged ego will doubtless require the last word.
    1
  3. Your childish patronation demeans you, not me. I understood the original post just fine. Emmanual was sarcastically suggesting that if "following orders" is not an adequate defence for a member of the military, then the US troops who have waged immoral wars in Iraq for instance, should also be held personally accountable for the commands of their generals.
    1
  4. But threat is clearly not the only criteria in determining justice. If a person is the head of a large bank and rips off investors for billions, the second he gets fired, he's no longer a threat, but surely you wouldn't consider that he should go unpunished because of that? I think your sympathy for this man's age, and the time that has elapsed is making you forget the horrific things he did that have gone without justice or punishment. He should certainly go to prison forever.
    1
  5. Of course soldiers have always behaved badly in war. It's an an inevitable consequence of leaders demonising the enemy enough for otherwise decent people to want to kill other innocent people. Which is precisely why Emmanuel's point about who should be held accountable has some validity. Now I see your problem - you see disagreement as criticism. That explains why you feel the need to be insulting. Your ego has been threatened. I imagine that level of defensiveness must make you fun to talk to.
    1
  6. You raise a fundamental issue - IS the judicial system about justice or revenge? If it's about justice, then he should be brutally tortured for as long as he can be kept alive. That would be fair. Personally, in my calmer momnents, I don't think that the judicial system should be about either - it should be about making society better for all. If that means a criminal is reformed but not punished then so be it.
    1
  7. He only gets away with it if he goes unpunished. You are happy to allow him to go unpunished simply because he has managed to evade capture long enough to become old. He ceases to be an evil scumbag murderer just because he looks like your great granpa? And you say I make no sense?! He's still the person that committed those crimes. He may be mellow and friendly now, but he deserves to be punished.
    1
  8. I'm conflicted. I think following orders is a perfectly reasonable justification provided you did not exceed those orders, or act in a needlessly sadistic manner. After all, many of these soldiers had their own families and lives at risk if the disobeyed.
    1
  9. That wasn't the point. Nazis faced war crime tribunals after the war. The point is that atrocities have been committed by the USA in modern times.
    1
  10. So you haven't read the Rolling Stone article about the soldiers who collected body parts as trophies in Afghanistan and blew that young boy up just for entertainment? And what is Guantanomo if not a concentration camp?
    1
  11. Nazis who committed known atrocities were also punished after the war. Which is more than can be said of the scum who waterboarded the Guantonomo prisoners. Guantanomo meets all the definitions of the definition of "concentration cmp". But the government loves to play this word game to make it seem less offensive to civilised people. Torture becomes "enhanced interrogation" "concentration camp" becomes "internment camp". America has ceased to be a nation of law.
    1