MLADIC TRIAL

jakdelad

is it me or does it not seem a bit silly
putting mladic through a trial
when the outcome is clear, in all honesty he s going to be found guilty
if the evdience is so overwhelming how could he possibly defend himself
and if he decides not to participate its really only going through the motions
the idea of a fair trial and a quick hanging as they used to say in the westerns comes to mind........

seriously nobody really thinks he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting free from all charges
is it just a sort of,, make it look fair to have a trial??

Kristopherus

Would'nt surprise me if the b**tard topped himself, so as not to give the UN the chance to convict him and give two fingers to his victims.

234

jakdelad wrote: »

is it me or does it not seem a bit silly
putting mladic through a trial
when the outcome is clear, in all honesty he s going to be found guilty
if the evdience is so overwhelming how could he possibly defend himself
and if he decides not to participate its really only going through the motions
the idea of a fair trial and a quick hanging as they used to say in the westerns comes to mind........

seriously nobody really thinks he has a snowballs chance in hell of getting free from all charges
is it just a sort of,, make it look fair to have a trial??

A quick example provides the answer. You mention evidence that is "overwhelming" and he should be should be found guilty on this basis. Can you produce some of this evidence; not just media reports of the evidence, or newspaper articles or wikipedia, can you link the actual evidence that is so overwhelming that he should be convicted.
Unless you are an eyewitness or working the Hague you will not have any of this evidence. Only a court, when in possession of this evidence, is in any position to make a decision on his guilt.

jakdelad

234 wrote: »

A quick example provides the answer. You mention evidence that is "overwhelming" and he should be should be found guilty on this basis. Can you produce some of this evidence; not just media reports of the evidence, or newspaper articles or wikipedia, can you link the actual evidence that is so overwhelming that he should be convicted.
Unless you are an eyewitness or working the Hague you will not have any of this evidence. Only a court, when in possession of this evidence, is in any position to make a decision on his guilt.

well then RTE BBC are all liars
everyday the media say mladic is responsible for thousands of murders

wtf its not me thats gonna try him/?? i dont give a fuk about him.
suggest you read the post slowly this time
i am only stating whats reported
are you his legal representative??? jeeze
and i said IF the evidence so over whelming

BrianD

There is a view that you don't get to a appear at a War Crimes tribunal unless you're guilty. It is bizarre but there is a presumption of guilt based on the fact that you were in charge and this is what happened.

It is necessary to have the trial for transparency

Delancey

Don't forget that several nazis were cleared completely at Nuremburg while others were convicted of less serious charges.

Example - Admiral Doenitz who had suceeded Hitler as Fuhrer was charged with War Crimes , Crimes Against Humanity , etc , ultimately the prosecution case against him largely collapsed when the commander of the US Pacific Fleet told the tribunal that he had given his submarine commanders the exact same instructions Doenitz had given his in relation to aiding survivors of torpedoed ships.
In the end he was jailed for 11 years as opposed to the death penalty that many expected.

Mladics guilt is not a foregone conclusion.

234

jakdelad wrote: »

well then RTE BBC are all liars
everyday the media say mladic is responsible for thousands of murders

wtf its not me thats gonna try him/?? i dont give a fuk about him.
suggest you read the post slowly this time
i am only stating whats reported
are you his legal representative??? jeeze
and i said IF the evidence so over whelming

jakdelad wrote: »

is it me or does it not seem a bit silly
putting mladic through a trial
when the outcome is clear, in all honesty he s going to be found guilty
if the evdience is so overwhelming

Your first post conveys a personal opinion rather than reiteration of media reoprts so I responded on that basis. I acknowledge that you did make the point on the basis that "if" the evidence was so overwhelming.
If I had and difficulty understanding your post it is probably because of the strange manner of your posting; it looks a bit like free-verse. It makes it very difficult to determine you precise meaning when you write in such an alien manner. I think other posters experience similar difficulties. If you posted in a more conventional manner these misunderstandings might not arise.
My first post adequately addresses your first post as phrased.

jakdelad

234 wrote: »

Your first post conveys a personal opinion rather than reiteration of media reoprts so I responded on that basis. I acknowledge that you did make the point on the basis that "if" the evidence was so overwhelming.
If I had and difficulty understanding your post it is probably because of the strange manner of your posting; it looks a bit like free-verse. It makes it very difficult to determine you precise meaning when you write in such an alien manner. I think other posters experience similar difficulties. If you posted in a more conventional manner these misunderstandings might not arise.
My first post adequately addresses your first post as phrased.

i had to take you to task before on ridiculing how people post and their spelling etc......
well let me tell you jak.i dident do the,, how to post correctly course.
and as regards opinions what else would they be only personal??
thats why they call them opinions,
opinion–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion..........
and if anyone else has a problem with my posts let them express it
nobody cares what you think.[thats an opinion too]
if you dont understand a post dont you think its a bit stupid trying to respond to something you dont fully understand???
further more there are hundreds of posters here who my be deslexic,may be bad spellers, not great on their full stops, etc,
the last thing anyone needs is the grammer police ......
if your only contribution here is to try and ridicule posters about the way they post,or spell then you have nothing to offer
suggest trying the same sh1t on the boys in the law liberary they will give you all the clear and concise posts you want without the verse

and whats your problem with free verse?? some of the greatest writings in the world came from free verse

FreudianSlippers

Cut out the personal stuff. Not everyone is a good writer, but if you're having difficulty understanding a post please ask for clarification rather than make personal attacks.
It would also be helpful if posters attempted to post in complete sentences with punctuation. It does make a huge difference.

Tom Young

I agree with the last post. I am closing this thread now.