Biggest war criminal of 21st century?

Edited 2 months, 23 days ago

Poll: Biggest war criminal of 21st century? (26 votes)

George Bush 31%
Tony Blair 4%
Other (Please say) 65%

Biggest war criminal of the 21st century?

#1 Posted by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

Osama bin Laden

#2 Posted by themajormayor (25646 posts) -

Probably Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

#3 Posted by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

Probably Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

That was 20th century. Just saying.

#4 Posted by Aljosa23 (24305 posts) -

Donald Rumsfeld

#5 Edited by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

Its a fierce contest between the IDF and U.S army

#6 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6193 posts) -

seahorse123

#7 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

And for the biggest fascist of the 21st century I nominate the Muslim Brotherhood.

#8 Edited by robokill (1064 posts) -

The international bankers, they get third world countries to takeout loans that have clauses in them that force them into further indebtedness that eventually leads the third world countries into buying weapons from the bankers business associates. Get rid of these bankers and every major war since WW1 wouldn't have happened. Most people are programmed into thinking they are ambivalent but the reality is much different.

Lenin was trained by these bankers in New York, his real name isn't even Lenin.

#9 Posted by plageus900 (925 posts) -
#10 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Donald Rumsfeld

This.

I know that Donald Rumsfeld is the U.S' secretary of defence but I decided to google him anyway. I found this:

"Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush"

How the fuck could that be? Strange.

#11 Posted by plageus900 (925 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@plageus900 said:

@Aljosa23 said:

Donald Rumsfeld

This.

I know that Donald Rumsfeld is the U.S' secretary of defence but I decided to google him anyway. I found this:

"Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush"

How the fuck could that be? Strange.

He's an old fuck. He was in his 40's the first time he served as Secretary of Defense.

#12 Edited by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@plageus900 said:

@Aljosa23 said:

Donald Rumsfeld

This.

I know that Donald Rumsfeld is the U.S' secretary of defence but I decided to google him anyway. I found this:

"Rumsfeld served as the 13th Secretary of Defense from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford, and as the 21st Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush"

How the fuck could that be? Strange.

He's an old fuck. He was in his 40's the first time he served as Secretary of Defense.

He is actually both the youngest and the oldest person to serve as Secretary of Defense in American history, though the position may be relatively new (I think for most of America's history the title was Secretary of War, not defense.

#13 Edited by foxhound_fox (86922 posts) -

Omar al-Bashir, in terms of pure numbers.

#14 Posted by whipassmt (13831 posts) -

I was originally going to say Saddam Hussein, but Omar al Bashir might be a better choice.

#15 Edited by themajormayor (25646 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@themajormayor said:

Probably Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

That was 20th century. Just saying.

Are you sure?

#16 Posted by Iszdope (9415 posts) -
#17 Posted by 4myAmuzumament (1743 posts) -

Kony 2012

#18 Posted by Aljosa23 (24305 posts) -
#19 Posted by themajormayor (25646 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@themajormayor: that's still 20th century lol

Yeah but it's the late 20th century so you round it to the 21st century.

#20 Edited by plageus900 (925 posts) -
#21 Edited by Mikey132 (5101 posts) -

@robokill said:

The international bankers, they get third world countries to takeout loans that have clauses in them that force them into further indebtedness that eventually leads the third world countries into buying weapons from the bankers business associates. Get rid of these bankers and every major war since WW1 wouldn't have happened. Most people are programmed into thinking they are ambivalent but the reality is much different.

Lenin was trained by these bankers in New York, his real name isn't even Lenin.

Since WW1?? OK, I'll bite. I'm very interested in your theory of bankers starting WW2. Enlighten me

#22 Edited by Boddicker (2274 posts) -

Judging by the shitty state of the world today it's 95% an African. But the 21st century has just started. Give it time.

#23 Edited by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

Judging by the shitty state of the world today it's 95% an African. But the 21st century has just started. Give it time.

#24 Posted by Boddicker (2274 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Boddicker said:

Judging by the shitty state of the world today it's 95% an African. But the 21st century has just started. Give it time.

But oh so true lol

#25 Posted by BossPerson (9388 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

And for the biggest fascist of the 21st century I nominate the Muslim Brotherhood.

Republican party comes a close second

#26 Edited by bowchicka07 (1069 posts) -

Joseph Kony.

#27 Edited by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

And for the biggest fascist of the 21st century I nominate the Muslim Brotherhood.

Republican party comes a close second

That recent waterboarding remark of Palin the witch was the final straw.

#28 Edited by Master_Live (13622 posts) -

Obama.

#29 Edited by LostProphetFLCL (16980 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

#30 Edited by elkoldo (916 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@themajormayor said:

Probably Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

That was 20th century. Just saying.

Are you sure?

What's Maradona (Presumably in '86) got to do with this ?

#31 Posted by playmynutz (5921 posts) -

Seems like war with Iraq angered Islam and they got mad at Israel for 9/11

#32 Edited by chaplainDMK (6649 posts) -
#33 Posted by bowchicka07 (1069 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@themajormayor: that's still 20th century lol

Yeah but it's the late 20th century so you round it to the 21st century.

No you don't lol. This isn't math or grading a paper. History is precise. It's either one or the other.

#34 Edited by chaplainDMK (6649 posts) -

@themajormayor said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@themajormayor: that's still 20th century lol

Yeah but it's the late 20th century so you round it to the 21st century.

No you don't lol. This isn't math or grading a paper. History is precise. It's either one or the other.

Implying Hitler, Stalin or Mao were late 20th century in the first place.

#35 Edited by Aljosa23 (24305 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@themajormayor: that's still 20th century lol

Yeah but it's the late 20th century so you round it to the 21st century.

lol you so silly, major

by that reasoning Reagan is 21st century

#36 Edited by uninspiredcup (6880 posts) -

Really? You think Bush and Blair are war criminals?

This is a war criminal.

Željko Lelek took part in the widespread and systematic attacks on Bosniak civilians that were carried out in Višegrad between April and June 1992 by Bosnian Serb forces assisted by paramilitary groups from neighbouring Serbia. Some 4000 Muslims from Višegrad disappeared. Lelek, a policeman, was a member of the group led by the war criminals Milan Lukić and Mitar Vasiljević, both found guilty by the Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague of some of the most horrific crimes committed during the Bosnian War.[1]

In May 1992 Lelek was alleged to have decapitated two men and, with Milan Lukić, killed another three. At the beginning of June, in one of the most notorious incidents of the Bosnian war, Lelek together with Milan Joksimović and Vlatko Lukić brought two women of unknown identity to the Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge in Višegrad. One of the women was carrying a baby in her arms. The original indictment described in detail how these three individuals were murdered at the bridge: Pecikoza threw the baby in the air and Lelek caught it on a knife-blade, then ordered the mother to drink the blood of her child. They subsequently ordered two men they had brought to the scene to throw the bodies of the women and baby into the Drina, then killed them.[1]

Lelek was also charged with the torture of civilian men in the Višegrad police station and with participating in the mass rape of women in the Vilina Vlas motel.[1]

He was found guilty of taking part in persecution of the Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) population, grave freedom deprivations, grave sexual assaults and forcible transfer of the population, in a campaign during which Bosnian Muslim men were abducted from their homes and places of work, detained and killed while women were taken to a camp where they were tortured and raped .[2]

In April 1992 Lelek and Milan Lukic repeatedly raped a Muslim woman in the Vilina Vlas hotel, on the outskirts of Visegrad.[2] In June 1992 Lelek forced a Muslim woman detained at Vilina Vlas to "provide him with sexual services".[2]

In May and June 1992 Lelek and other Bosnian Serb soldiers and policemen abducted Muslim men from their homes near Višegrad and imprisoned them. They robbed and demolished the men's homes. In the course of one robbery and abduction Lelek forced a Muslim woman and her 80-year-old bed-ridden mother-in-law to take off their clothes to prove they had no money with them. [2]

Azra Osmanagić, a prosecution witness, one of a group of Višegrad women forcibly transferred to Bosnian government-held territory and whose husband was abducted and killed, observed that Lelek "was raised with us, went to school with us, lived by us and did such terrible things".[2]

Osmanagić and others were angered by the Court's verdict[2] after the Trial Panel dismissed the charges against Lelek of the two decapitations and three killings in May 1992 and also the charge of killing the two women and baby at Mehmed Paša Sokolović Bridge and the Appeal Panel confirmed Lelek's acquittal. The Appeal Panel found that an amended indictment that left out the relevant criminal acts referred to in the previous indictment signified that the Prosecution had dropped these charges and that this had been explicitly and verbally confirmed before the court.[3][4][5]

Lelek remained on active service as a policeman in Višegrad until his arrest in November 2006.[6] Members of Women Victims of War, an association of rape survivors from Višegrad led by Bakira Hasečić, had for years been calling for Lelek’s arrest and had filed complaints against another eight serving members of the town's police force.[7] During Lelek's trial he insulted Hasečić, a witness against him, and threatened her several times.[8] It is claimed that Lelek's continued employment and impunity are evidence of a corrupt administrative system that protects suspected war criminals up to the highest levels

#37 Edited by thegerg (14409 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

#38 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (16980 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

He was waging a holy war and going after the US because of our meddling in the Middle East.

It wasn't like 9-11 was the only attack he orchestrated. Hell, it was even the first time he had attacked the freaking World Trade Center...

#39 Edited by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

#40 Posted by thegerg (14409 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

He was waging a holy war and going after the US because of our meddling in the Middle East.

It wasn't like 9-11 was the only attack he orchestrated. Hell, it was even the first time he had attacked the freaking World Trade Center...

"He was waging a holy war and going after the US because of our meddling in the Middle East."

I'm not sure someone calling their acts a holy war actually fits the criteria necessary for something to be a war crime.

"It wasn't like 9-11 was the only attack he orchestrated. Hell, it was even the first time he had attacked the freaking World Trade Center..."

Yes, and?

#41 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (16980 posts) -

I now remember why we don't discuss things with The Gerg...

#42 Edited by thegerg (14409 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

OK. Thank for sharing, but that has no bearing on my post.

#43 Posted by thegerg (14409 posts) -

I now remember why we don't discuss things with The Gerg...

What's wrong with my response to you?

#44 Edited by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

OK. Thank for sharing, but that has no bearing on my post.

How does it have no bearing on your post? You asked, I answered.

#45 Edited by thegerg (14409 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@LostProphetFLCL said:

@jasean79 said:

Osama bin Laden

While I am sure some hipsters would scoff at this choice, it really is a pretty good choice in my eyes.

He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history (at least I do believe it was the deadliest. Can't remember for 100% certain) that killed thousands and had a huge negative economic impact (something most people don't realize, but it set a record for biggest one-day drop in the stock market. Billions of dollars were lost as a result of that one attack.

Not only that, but the 9-11 attack put events in motion that led to not one but TWO wars (remember it was the beginning basis for our war with Iraq, the false weapons of mass destruction report was just the final straw) and of course the organization he ran has caused pain in many countries and resulted in many deaths.

While there might be people out there who have been responsible for more deaths, I feel like Bin Laden might have had the most negative impact on a global scale. For certain, his awful actions have had a HUGE negative impact here in the US and all over the Middle East.

"He pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history"

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

OK. Thank for sharing, but that has no bearing on my post.

How does it have no bearing on your post? You asked, I answered.

I didn't ask anything, I made a statement.

Anyway, I was simply pointing out that there may be some gray-area as to whether or not that terrorist attack qualifies as an act of war. It's great that you think it's more than a "simple criminal act" (and I agree with you), but that really doesn't address my point.

#46 Edited by jasean79 (2241 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

OK. Thank for sharing, but that has no bearing on my post.

How does it have no bearing on your post? You asked, I answered.

I didn't ask anything, I made a statement.

Umm...you posted about "raising a question". I took that as you were asking. My bad.

#47 Edited by thegerg (14409 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

@jasean79 said:

@thegerg said:

Well that raises the question (in a conversation about war crimes) as to whether or not that was an act of war, or simply a criminal act.

I think masterminding a plan to take over two airlines and slam them into one of the most iconic buildings in the USA raises that far above a simple criminal act.

OK. Thank for sharing, but that has no bearing on my post.

How does it have no bearing on your post? You asked, I answered.

I didn't ask anything, I made a statement.

Umm...you posted about "raising a question". I took that as you were asking. My bad.

No worries. Anyway, I was simply pointing out that there may be some gray-area as to whether or not that terrorist attack qualifies as an act of war. It's great that you think it's more than a "simple criminal act" (and I agree with you), but that really doesn't address my point.