andygardener Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 It doesn't matter what Gram would consider them to be. They'd be innocent regardless. Which bit of if you did it then you did it don't you understand? If you kill someone then you are not innocent, if in the case of this mass murderer not just a person but thousands on his orders, then tedious little barrack room lawyers who do not understand that having demonstably done an evil act allows others to judge your character blathering on about "yes if i saw a man rape and kill my mum i would spend every last penny to ensure nobody called him a criminal unless the due process in my juristriction had convicted him" is seriously annoying. If you watch a dog **** on your drive it does not require 12 good men and true to make you have a word with the owner. Lets hope any sane person regards genocide as more serious than dog fouling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 It's because he has not been proven to slaughter anybody yet. no, the most wanted man in the world...........for years they dont think he did owt, they dont know what position in the war he played? come on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 I think, even disregarding Srebrenica, Mladic incriminated himself so utterly, even he realises he won't be found innocent. All that posing for the camera, puffing his chest out and ordering his men to shell civilian, residential, muslim districts on film means he is banged to rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 At last, someone must want Serbia in the EU. Ratko Mladic, wanted for the Srebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims, is arrested in Serbia and moves to extradite him to The Hague tribunal begin. BBC News To right, at last. Serbia in EU is a major factor I'm sure. Lets hope he lives long enough to rot. How the world let it happen in the first place is beyond me. The color film of the camps was an alarm bell that no one acted on. The whole world should be disgusted with itself for letting it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Regardless of all the above babble, the man is STILL innocent, as he hasn't been proven guilty. Remarkable how some people can't grasp this simple fact lol. Damn have you seen the camp films or the UN reports in the press on the mass killings. Hitler was never tried, but died guilty. you are a Schmuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gram? Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 It doesn't matter what Gram would consider them to be. They'd be innocent regardless. Exactly, that's for the legal system to decide, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 There's a surprise, his lawyers are claiming he is too poorly to stand trial. The old Pinochet defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 Exactly, that's for the legal system to decide, not me. what is a 'criminal' to you? and what is you definition of 'innocent'? not the legal one. even in legal terms no one is ever found 'innocent' they're found 'not guilty'. a clear understanding that acquittal is not the same as 'innocence'. anyway, the only reason for a trial, like most at The Hague is only for justice to be seen to be done. it's the process they go for, not so much the result, as everyone knows the animal's guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 There's a surprise, his lawyers are claiming he is too poorly to stand trial. The old Pinochet defense. they also trying to say he a changed man after his daughter's suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 they also trying to say he a changed man after his daughter's suicide. Unfortunately this defence doesn't really hold. She died in 1994 (committed suicide due to shame at his previous actions, allegedly) yet the Srebrenica massacre was in 1995 and the siege of Sarajevo was 1992. So he was a nutjob before her suicide, and he continued being one after her suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.