3 ms·

> this is the time to apply the principle of charity, this is the time to remember the good things he's done, and not the bad. It's silly to ignore the war cr

> this is the time to apply the principle of charity, this is the time to remember the good things he's done, and not the bad. It's silly to ignore the war crimes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands just because a war criminal is dying. > Remember that he's one of the guys consistently disagreeing with Trump (which is still rare amongst republicans). Rare? The entire republican establishment has come out against Trump - mccain, graham, romney, etc. And krauthammer doesn't consistently disagree with trump. He supported trump's illegal attacks on syria.

CWuestefeld 8y ago
Elsewhere you said The point of an opinion piece is to lie, cajole, trick, etc people into accepting your opinion or viewpoint. It seems you may be doing that right now. You're calling Krauthammer a war criminal, which is patently false. He may be wrong-headed, but since he never actually acted in the war, never served as an agent of the government, it's flat-out false to refer to him as a "war criminal".
- ravenscrow 8y ago
  > It seems you may be doing that right now. Yes. Just like you are. It's called commenting ( aka providing your opinion ). > You're calling Krauthammer a war criminal, which is patently false. It's not patently false. It's a matter of opinion. Lying and advocating for an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in my opinion is a war crime. And stop acting like "war crime" is some universal objective term that we can all agree to. It isn't. War crime is just opinion. Was hiroshima or nagasaki a war crime? Some say yes, other say no. So your assertion that it is "patently false" is patently false. > He may be wrong-headed, but since he never actually acted in the war, never served as an agent of the government He was a propagandist for the government supporting an illegal war. It's naive to believe he didn't serve as an agent of the government. Maybe the washingtonpost you know is different from the one I know. If you could provide any legal justification for the invasion of iraq, then maybe I would reconsider my opinion. But you can't because there isn't. So you'll stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine.
  - oxide 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure there is absolutely an objective definition of what is and is not a war crime.
  - CWuestefeld 8y ago
    You can have your own opinion, but you've got to build it on some foundation. stop acting like "war crime" is some universal objective term that we can all agree to. It isn't. Ummm. Yes it is well defined. And what you're complaining about isn't in that definition. On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. ... War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes: [followed by a list that formats poorly here, so I'll just leave the link] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Criminal_Court_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Crimin...

CWuestefeld 8y ago

Elsewhere you said The point of an opinion piece is to lie, cajole, trick, etc people into accepting your opinion or viewpoint. It seems you may be doing that right now. You're calling Krauthammer a war criminal, which is patently false. He may be wrong-headed, but since he never actually acted in the war, never served as an agent of the government, it's flat-out false to refer to him as a "war criminal".

ravenscrow 8y ago
> It seems you may be doing that right now. Yes. Just like you are. It's called commenting ( aka providing your opinion ). > You're calling Krauthammer a war criminal, which is patently false. It's not patently false. It's a matter of opinion. Lying and advocating for an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in my opinion is a war crime. And stop acting like "war crime" is some universal objective term that we can all agree to. It isn't. War crime is just opinion. Was hiroshima or nagasaki a war crime? Some say yes, other say no. So your assertion that it is "patently false" is patently false. > He may be wrong-headed, but since he never actually acted in the war, never served as an agent of the government He was a propagandist for the government supporting an illegal war. It's naive to believe he didn't serve as an agent of the government. Maybe the washingtonpost you know is different from the one I know. If you could provide any legal justification for the invasion of iraq, then maybe I would reconsider my opinion. But you can't because there isn't. So you'll stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine.
- oxide 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure there is absolutely an objective definition of what is and is not a war crime.
- CWuestefeld 8y ago
  You can have your own opinion, but you've got to build it on some foundation. stop acting like "war crime" is some universal objective term that we can all agree to. It isn't. Ummm. Yes it is well defined. And what you're complaining about isn't in that definition. On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. ... War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes: [followed by a list that formats poorly here, so I'll just leave the link] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Criminal_Court_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime#International_Crimin...