As i know Pinochet Ugarter has commited crimes in Chili.
There was OWN military junta in Argentine , that commited the crimes toward Left-wings( real or suspective) in Argentine.
You are right thanks, we need one in both countries. By the way, isn’t it a contradiction that in a ww2 forum some people act like old women, instead of men.
Can’t resist popping in the flame bait, can you?
Keep it up and see where it gets you.
Consider this an informal warning from a moderator to pull your head in and stop trying to start conflicts.
You are right, I will
Chers Mate
PS. Hopefully the All Black’s win the Bledisloe Cup 2009 
You do realize that the All Blacks are from New Zealand? The Wallabies are the Australian ones…
PS: If you were just trying to provoke RS*, please ignore the previous comment and wait for his infinite Australian wrath…
Yes, I know he kicked a second early, but he’s a kangaroo, for god’s sake!
Interest factor zero in my state where, apart from a few uncouth brutes who wallow in that disgusting refereed brawl called rugby, we play Aussie Rules football, which is a much faster and vastly more refined game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfkOeckK_yc
Okay, that’s the way it was some years back, but not as good as when I was a kid where an all-in brawl between two teams of 18 men each before the game even started wasn’t unusual, just to set the tone for an interesting afternoon of random unbridled violence annoyingly interrupted by occasional passages of play. 
Now they’ve gone all politically correct and sissy.
That’s pretty intense, I gotta give you that…
What’s the average rate of survival for a game? 50%? 40%?
Nah, about 100%. The modern game has got rid of the rough edges to encourage women and kids to come to see clean play. Which is a bit odd, as off the field the players seem to be flat out pissing in public places, getting into fights, sexually assaulting women, and associating with organised crime figures. Apparently the sport’s governing body regards this as an improvement. :rolleyes:
Here’s the modern game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xHk1dOy35s&playnext_from=PL&feature=PlayList&p=100779A0EA73737E&playnext=1&index=41
Then again, there are still echoes of the past, but occurring somewhat surprisingly in an intra-club pre-season match. He’s an Irish import, so what can you expect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqx0GzUOmEw
Ah well, the Irish. You gotta love them. Just make sure you’re on their side in a Barfight…
Why do you think woman and children don’t like a fight on the field?:rolleyes:
As i know the NHL members specially get fight diring the game to attract the some sort of public , who likes the violence and boxings( lesbian-woman and agressive children included:))
This is e essential part of Show, that contribute to the rating of game and “popularity”.
When the virgin Soviet Hockey-playes has come in first time to Canada in 1971 thay have been “infected” by the “canadian harsh style” 
( AFter that infamous tournament, they start to beat yeach other right on the field).
All the evil comes from the West
Which is a bit odd, as off the field the players seem to be flat out pissing in public places, getting into fights, sexually assaulting women, and associating with organised crime figures. Apparently the sport’s governing body regards this as an improvement. :rolleyes:
Nah, it’s not odd, coz it’s a part of SHow.
The scandals just increase their personal popularity by mass media.
Look at Diego Maradona.
I don’t think that.
It’s the sport’s governing body that thinks that.
Women and kids love organised violence. That’s why most schoolteachers are women.
Or arrange one about the crimes of Pinot chet in Buenos Aires, No offence ment!, I have many Argentinian friends who came to live here as Political refuges.
When you try to provoke people it works best if you know what you are talking about :rolleyes: , Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was the dictator of Chile not Argentina, there is an austellung of the Argentine Armed Forced crimes in the forme Navy mechanical school in the city of Buenos Aires, but of course none of that is related with the lack of intellectual honesty of the russians.
Probably it have to do with the fact that Russia was, and still is a police state.
When you try to provoke the peoples first , your own reaction look wery fun for others.
Probably it have to do with the fact that Russia was, and still is a police state.
…said naive one, from “stronghold of Democraty” - Agrentine.
In police Russia , buddy , peoples at least did not disappear just 25 years back.When your “national-democratic” Junta murdered every one, who looks suspiciously.
Sometime I write with the head under my arms, as I have job to do besides visiting the forum.
But thank for the infos, I think too many discussions here, are not staying on topic, It is simply not possible to discuss history when each time someone
brings on a subject, they are countered with childish comparisons.
I know I have been doing it myself in bringing on the rape issue, but that was wrong.
From an analytic approach, it is impossible to draw a direct comparison between Communist and Nazi crimes, as the reason of the crimes was different.
That said there where still crimes on both sides who served the same purpose, but still comparisons are not helping anyone in understanding history, rather than getting confused.
Make sure you use deodorant.
Perhaps the greatest virtue of this board is that it allows discussions to wander, both on serious and frivolous matters. This allows things to be explored in a way that doesn’t happen on boards where the moderators apply a rigid ‘on topic’ policy which often stifles useful discussion. Plus we can have a bit of fun.
Yes, it is.
If you have sound counter-arguments, present them.
Isn’t that a topic in itself?
Does the ideology or vengefulness or randomness which allows war crimes alter the moral quality and personal effect on victims and their families?
Maybe the only understanding history offers is that the reasons for brutality and inhumanity are confusing, if one looks for those reasons in political ideology rather than in people’s hearts and minds.
Brutality and inhumanity cross all ideologies, races, cultures, and religions. The only common factor is human beings.
Uuuh, deep. Is it worse to kill in the name of an ideology or out of hunger for power?
That’s one for the philosophers
No, it’s one for us.
And for every other ‘everyman’ and ‘everywoman’.
We are the people who determine what is moral in the real world. Kant, Hobbes, Hume, et al were no more qualfied than you or I to determine it. They just used bigger words and more obscure concepts.
In the end, does it matter whether you get a bullet in the head from:
-
A mugger.
-
A close relative
-
A crazy random sniper
-
An enemy in battle
-
An Einsatzgruppen
-
A Utah firing squad.
There are obvious differences in the nature of the victim, but is the result any different?
Will you be any happier on the way to your death, or any less dead, in any case?
Well, that depends on the Point of View. For the victim, it is pretty much the same, they’re dead, no matter what. They can only hope that they weren’t left to suffer for long before they were killed.
From the Point of View of the Killer, I think the Killer out of Ideology feels the least guilty, as he did it for what he considers a non-selfish reason, he did it for a bigger idea. The only one that might feel less guilty is the crazy sniper, but that’s because he’s crazy. :mrgreen:
A (mentally healthy) killer out of greed/need is probably going to feel quite guilty for what he committed, even though he is going to try to comfort himself by saying that he needed to/by looking at his loot.
A related killer, I assume, killed out of a very personal feeling, such as rage. This person, in my opinion, is generally going to feel the most guilty, as strong feelings tend to diminish with time, leaving only regret and guilt.
A firing squad is obviously going to feel some guilt, too, but in the end they (usually) did it in the name of law, or at the order of a superior officer. They might have thoughts such as ‘I should’ve said no’ or ‘Why didn’t I aim next to him’, but in the end, they usually did it for a reason. (Keep in mind that I exclude the firing squads that killed Jews, etc, in WW2 from this, they would be more likely to be Ideology Killers)
So, if I had to weigh in these murderers from an educated outside perspective, that neither supports Ideological killings (As the Nazis and Muslims do) nor declines them (As the modern Western world does), I’d probably list them like this, starting with the worst:
Killer out of Greed (Mugger, Robber, Political Murderer, etc)
Killer for personal reasons (Anger, Broken Heart, etc)
Killer out of Ideology (Honor-Killings, Killing in the name of a belief)
Killer out of Psychological reasons (Mental problems, etc)
Killer in the name of Law (Firing Squad, Executioner)
Killer in a battle (Soldier vs Soldier)
Does this mean that a comparison between the murders of SS einsatzgruppen in white Russia and the sporadic killing of German prisoners by the Americans is something that
is helping os drawing any fair conclusions out of history?, I don’t think so.
Where exactly in my post did you get that from??
While the SS Einsatztruppen were used for Ideological Murder, the soldiers who killed POWs did so out of anger, two very different things…