Apparently starting a war is the "supreme crime", except when Muslims do it in the name of Islam. In that case it can either be blamed on the US for spawning all the atrocities (such as those committed by ISIS), or isn't so bad after all, because the Caliphate brought so much good to the places it conquered. (OK, maybe they are shitholes today because of it, but at least it brought Islam....) Or maybe it's because conquering the middle east, north Africa, southern Europe etc, all within about a century, was actually a defensive war, not an aggressive one.
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8
th, 2016 at 5:30pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8
th, 2016 at 5:11pm:
the 'hundreds of thousands' dead was muslims vs muslims. it was not the Allies. muslims have an apaling habit of murdering each other by the millions eg Iran vs Iraq and who can forget ISIS who ahve killed far more muslims than 'infidels'
When the Nazi top brass were tried at Nuremberg, the "
supreme crime" was not the crime of killing millions of Russians and Poles, or even killing 6 million jews - it was the crime of 'aggressive war' - invading other countries unprovoked from which all the other atrocities spawned from. Put simply, no aggressive war, and there is no holocaust and no mass slaughter of Russians, Poles etc.
Invading Iraq is another case of 'aggressive war' - from which all the subsequent atrocities spawned from. Even if it wasn't the US doing all the slaughtering, they enabled it all through engaging in aggressive war: no invasion of Iraq, no sunni-shiite civil war, and no ISIS.
And I'm only going to make this point once - I've been round this merry-go-round too many times over many years - and I'm not doing it again.
polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19
th, 2015 at 1:45pm:
Masterful sidestepping of what Chief Justice Jackson described at Nuremberg as "the supreme crime" - of aggressive war.
The fact is there was no jihadi problem in Syria or Iraq before 2003. Aggressive war such as the invasion of Iraq is a terrible crime to start with - but doing it with no ideas or plans to replace the soon-to-be-deposed regime with something viable (undoubtedly the responsibility of the invading nation) makes it even worse.
polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 15
th, 2015 at 10:48am:
Its a cycle S that goes back a lot further. The US opened the gates of hell when they invaded Iraq. Exactly what Chief Justice Jackson described at Nuremberg as the "supreme crime" - from which all other war crimes spawn from. Before 2003 there was nothing resembling ISIS or AQ in Syria or Iraq. Women had more freedom than they had anywhere else in the middle east.
Indirectly or directly, western actions have caused the death of untold thousands of innocents in the middle east. Whether or not you believe the west should be blamed for this, it still is the reality.
polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29
th, 2014 at 8:39pm:
Thats not to say for one moment that Germany or Japan were justified in their attacks - they were egregious acts of aggression - the "supreme crime", as Chief Justice Jackson described it at Nuremburg, from which all other crimes - including genocide - spawn from. So absolutely it was a good thing that they were defeated, but it doesn't change the fact that in defeating them, Britain and the US were defending their hegemonic position on the world markets.
polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 20
th, 2013 at 12:01pm:
When wars are started, bad things happen. Yet the greatest war crime of all - the "supreme crime" - as Justice Jackson stated at the Nuremburg war trial - is the act of aggressive war itself. All other war crimes spawn from, and are secondary to this. So when war is forced upon you - as it was to The Prophet, you don't take up the fight with kid gloves. You seek to destroy your enemy. About the first thing you seek to interrupt and destroy is the enemies economy, to deny them the wealth and resources they need to wage war on you.
Still, islam was the first religion/legal system that laid down some ground rule for lawful combat: no killing of non-combatants, no disproportionality, and no random destruction of property.
freediver wrote on Jan 9
th, 2016 at 8:21am:
Gandalf would you say that the explosion of the Caliphate across the middle east, north Africa and southern Europe, bringing Islam with it, was also a "supreme crime"?
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9
th, 2016 at 9:31am:
Sure - aggressive war is bad and I don't condone it by anyone.
The differences I suppose were
1. 1000+ years ago, just about everyone was doing it
2. it was not the industrialised, mass warfare that overwhelmingly targeted civilians - that Justice Jackson was talking about - but relatively clean and swift campaigns that only targeted the regime forces (who incidentally were themselves occupiers)
3. Far from spawning unspeakable suffering as the Nazi invasions did - the muslims unquestionably improved the life of the inhabitants and spawned great prosperity in the lands they conquered.
Forum
Pages: 1 
