Alyssa Milano Calls For A "Sex-Strike" Due To Additional States' New "Heartbeat" Bills

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Well it is true a trial involving torture or intimidation is not a sincere trial.
I do believe some of the Nazis were demonically driven. Shpuld we be as the world and say everything is che.ically and environmentally driven?
Christian's know better then that. The spirit world is real, more real in fact then our physical world. What happens in the spiritual manifest in the physical. Its rarely if ever the other way around.

The thing is, if Hitler were demonically driven, so are many people. Hitler was not a particularly special, diabolically chosen one. He is just one of many. But people focus on him as if he were the devil himself. There are far worse people, from what can actually be proved about Hitler.

The problem with you saying there was no trial is you are stating that as would a person who has no belief in God and His ordered Kimgdom.

Why? If they are judging Hitler as a particularly special, diabolically chosen one because they believe him guilty of genocide, they are using a worldly standard. Hence I am justified to refute this using a worldly standard of lack of evidence. If they are judging Hitler using a spiritual standard, why do they believe him to be more evil because he is accused of genocide? In God's view, how is genocide worse than mass murder?

There was indeed a trial ( or will be), and not many fair minded people on this planet think for a second that Hitler will be pronounced innocent of genocide. Myself included.

Genocide is not a crime in the trial to come. The crime is murder, surely? For we are all brothers and sisters, irrespective of race.

How do I know this? Facts about what Hitler did in our natural world and the understanding of Gods nature and how His Kingdom works. The written and verbal testimony of tens of thousands of Jews and non Jews, along with pictures and physical evidence is proof.

The thing is, the testimonies of those tens of thousands of witnesses do not correspond with each other to corroborate the systematic execution by gassing of 6 million Jews. Mistreatment, malnourishment, disease, possibly even murder of prisoners, yes. But no one witness to 6 million murders, and certainly no such body count, and few, if any, autopsies to prove cause of death. No photographs of gas chambers, and no surviving physical evidence of such. And even if there was a witness to 6 million murders, how does that one witness go about proving all the murder victims were Jewish?

This is what a court of law relies on when they convict someone.

The biblical standard to convict someone of murder was at least two corroborating testimonies. There is not one testimony of 6 million murders by gassing. Again, I'm not necessarily saying it didn't happen. Just that there is inadequate proof to make the claim any more than a belief.

What more do you want? Is the only way you are going to believe it is to
be transported back in time and witness it yourself?

This is the burden of proof logical fallacy. The onus isn't on me to disprove the claim - it is on the one making the claim to provide sufficient evidence to support it.

Satan loves it when people deny the holocaust. Anyone doing that is advancing his agenda.

I thought Satan's agenda depended on lies and deceipt? So how can anyone ensuring that there are facts to back up what he believes be advancing Satan's agenda?

Let me tell you about this disciple of Jesus named Thimas...

If you mean Thomas, I think he was a great guy. Was well prepared to go and die with Jesus. And made quite sure that Jesus was resurrected, before believing on Him. In fact, if it wasn't for Thomas, I think there would be many fewer believers today. Me included.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

I am not naive enough to think everything America does is good. Nor do I defend much of the obvious wrongs by the USA. Yet I will say our track record is generally better then most super powers currently, and probably in the history of the world.

Even if some of the Nazis were tortured (and I am not implying that would be a fair trial) they wre still guilty as a group en masse of genocide. Them being tortured, while putting the torturers in a bad light, does not change what they did. Two wrongs dont make a right, but one wrong does also not negate another wrong.

Hold on. The only proof that these Nazis were guilty of genocide was their confessions, which were obtained by torture. Yet you are saying they are still guilty of genocide, despite their being tortured? Don't you see the circular nature of this logic?

As to why they were being tortured, dont automatically assume it is because they were innocent. That would be dim logic. All it implies is that maybe they didn't want to drag the trial out, or maybe they were fishing for more secret info, and/or maybe, oh gosh, the torturers were prone to human emotions and were taking revenge out, or just getting their anger and frustrations out. I am not suggesting that was right, just saying, lets keep it real.

In a just society, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. And if the only means of proving many of these Nazis guilty were their own confessions obtained by torture, surely this makes the trials nothing more than a series of kangaroo courts, the confessions a theatre of shams, and casts the presumed guilt of the tortured prisoners into doubt?

 

[Dino246]

Hold on. The only proof that these Nazis were guilty of genocide was their confessions, which were obtained by torture.

Completely naïve hogwash. Read a history book.

Yet you are saying they are still guilty of genocide, despite their being tortured? Don't you see the circular nature of this logic?

It's not based on confessions obtained by torture. Your ignorance of this subject is amazing.

In a just society, the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. And if the only means of proving many of these Nazis guilty were their own confessions obtained by torture, surely this makes the trials nothing more than a series of kangaroo courts, the confessions a theatre of shams, and casts the presumed guilt of the tortured prisoners into doubt?

But that isn't the only evidence, so your comments are meaningless.

Go and do some reading about the history of Germany prior to WWII and the accounts of the liberators late in the war. Read the accounts of survivors. Read The Hiding Place and The Diary of Anne Frank. Watch Schindler's List (or read the book, which the movie follows closely). Watch the last three episodes of Band of Brothers. Go and visit Auschwitz.

Do some homework and stop promoting foolish and dangerously ignorant ideas.

 

[kaylagrl]

That's your opinion. But remember, opinions don't matter, facts do.

You actually didn't present any facts soooo...

 

[JosephsDreams]

Hitler was almost definitively demonically driven and so are a lot of people.
You are a Christian? You font grasp this?
When did I say Hitler was more evil?
Look at my past posts regarding that issue.
Your splitting hairs. Do you really not understand what I am referring to with genocide? Are you a lawyer, because you seem a little OCD or anal about this. Do you really not understand the point here?

"The thing is, the testimonies of those tens of thousands of witnesses do not correspond with each other to corroborate the systematic execution by gassing of 6 million Jews. Mistreatment, malnourishment, disease, possibly even murder of prisoners, yes. But no one witness to 6 million murders, and certainly no such body count, and few, if any, autopsies to prove cause of death. No photographs of gas chambers, and no surviving physical evidence of such. And even if there was a witness to 6 million murders, how does that one witness go about proving all the murder victims were Jewish?"

Everything you said here is false. Except to say no one person saw all the murders. There are photos of gas chambers, there were bodies, there were collaborating accounts. If I were a criminal and murderer I would want you to defend me. But as far as getting to the spirit of the truth, you are not the man for that.

Thomas did what he did without knowing it was for the sake of those like you, that is true. Yet if you hang all your faith on him seeing the holes in Jesus body, then you have bigger problems then me trying to set you straight.

There were many more testimonies then two people rehearing the Nazis killing the Jews, for separate incidents.

Let me ask you a question, do you think tens of thousands of Jews were hallucinating all this? What about all the names systemically recorded by the Germans of the Jews they sent to prison camps? There were millions of them, and there is proof of this.. I have been to Germany and seen lists upon lists of them. Where did they go after the war ended. They just somehow disparaged?

Satans agenda, don't worry, you are doing it and don't even realize it. By you challenging every single bit of evidence, you are on his fools errand. Good going. I am even beginning to wonder if you are a real Christian or just a troll. You getting a lot of things wrong about basic spiritual issues.

 

[JosephsDreams]

He Rat, it is probably better you don't even reply to me. I can see why our cherished Kaylagrl has had so many back and forth's with you.
If I ware you, I would start praying more and reading the bible more to gain
some Christian maturity and insight. You are way off with not only the legal testimony matter in America but also
of that in the bible.
No offense, but your concept of spirituality and demonic forces are dim at best.
I don't have the time to go back and forth with you because you are not a open vessel nor willing to examine your heart as to why you think the whole world is wrong and you are right.
If you maybe had a resume to back it up, to tell me that you proved everyone wrong while your brilliance proved that you were right, then maybe I could take you more seriously. In this case, to me, you just come off as a rebellious know it all who thinks he knows better then everyone else.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

He Rat, it is probably better you don't even reply to me. I can see why our cherished Kaylagrl has had so many back and forth's with you.
If I ware you, I would start praying more and reading the bible more to gain
some Christian maturity and insight. You are way off with not only the legal testimony matter in America but also
of that in the bible.

I'm happy to leave the main subject, as I can see I'm only getting emotional responses (not so much from you, but I respect your wishes as this topic appears to be hurtful to you). However, below is the scripture regarding capital offenses.

Note also that there was capacity in the court to cross-examine witnesses, to determine if witnesses were lying (in case "witnesses" had conspired to have a man wrongfully executed by the court). Also note scriptures regarding malicious (lying) witnesses - in capital cases, these were to be put to death.

Deuteronomy 17:6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15-19
One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.

No offense, but your concept of spirituality and demonic forces are dim at best. I don't have the time to go back and forth with you because you are not a open vessel nor willing to examine your heart as to why you think the whole world is wrong and you are right.
If you maybe had a resume to back it up, to tell me that you proved everyone wrong while your brilliance proved that you were right, then maybe I could take you more seriously. In this case, to me, you just come off as a rebellious know it all who thinks he knows better then everyone else.

Yeah, I don't have time for the back and forth, either. We've each expressed our opinions, and it's doubtful either side will convince the other. It also appears to be an emotional topic for some, and my intention is not to cause pain. I don't think anyone has really presented much more than opinion, other than the one fact we can all agree on below.

Except to say no one person saw all the murders.

If I were a criminal and murderer I would want you to defend me.

That's very kind of you, but I don't think I would in good conscience be able to defend you if you were a criminal or a murderer. Unless it was for a crime you didn't commit. Justice is justice, you see. Just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they committed every crime or every murder.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

well I suppose the Nuremburg trials were torture for some

Nuremberg trials
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
For the Tokyo trials, see International Military Tribunal for the Far East. For the 1947 Soviet film about the trials, see Nuremberg Trials (film).
International Humanitarian Law Courts and Tribunals

• Nuremberg trials
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East
• International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
• International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
• International Court of Justice
• International Criminal Court
• International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Principles

• Genocide
• Law of war
• Lieber Code
• Human shields
• Crimes against humanity
• Crime of apartheid
• War of aggression
• War crime

Treaties

• Hague Conventions
• Geneva Conventions
• Third Geneva Convention
• Fourth Geneva Convention
• Protocol I
• Protocol II
• Protocol III
• Rome Statute

• v
• t
• e

Part of a series onThe Holocaust

Jews on selection ramp at Auschwitz, May 1944
Responsibility[show]
Early policies[show]
Victims[show]
Ghettos[show]
Camps[show]
Atrocities[show]
Resistance[show]
Allied response[show]
Aftermath[show]
Lists[show]
Resources[show]
Remembrance[show]

• v
• t
• e

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Coordinates:

49°27.2603′N 11°02.9103′EThe Nuremberg trials (German: Die Nürnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals held by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of warafter World War II. The trials were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, judicial and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, and their decisions marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.
The first and best known of these trials was that of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). It was described as "the greatest trial in history" by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over them.[1] Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich. Martin Bormann had unknown to the Allies, died in May 1945 and was tried in absentia. Another defendant, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement.
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels had both committed suicide in the spring of 1945 to avoid capture. Heinrich Himmler attempted to commit suicide, but was captured before he could succeed; he committed suicide one day after being arrested by British forces.[3][4] Heinrich Müller disappeared the day after Hitler's suicide, the most senior figure of the Nazi regime whose fate remains unknown. Reinhard Heydrich had been assassinated by Czech partisans in 1942. Josef Terboven killed himself with dynamite in Norway in 1945. Adolf Eichmann fled to Argentina to avoid Allied capture, but was apprehended by Israel's intelligence service (Mossad) and hanged in 1962. Hermann Göring was sentenced to death, but committed suicide by consuming cyanide the night before his execution in defiance of his captors.
This article primarily deals with the first trial, which was conducted by the IMT. Further trials of lesser war criminals were conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), which included the Doctors' trial and the Judges' Trial.
The categorization of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be used afterwards by the United Nations for the development of a specific international jurisprudence in matters of war crime, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, as well as got the creation of the International Criminal Court. The Nuremberg indictment also mentions genocide for the first time in international law (Count three, war crimes : "the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.")[5]


DESE ARE DE FACTS

 

[kaylagrl]

Coordinates:

49°27.2603′N 11°02.9103′EThe Nuremberg trials (German: Die Nürnberger Prozesse) were a series of military tribunals held by the Allied forces under international law and the laws of warafter World War II. The trials were most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, judicial and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, who planned, carried out, or otherwise participated in the Holocaust and other war crimes. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany, and their decisions marked a turning point between classical and contemporary international law.
The first and best known of these trials was that of the major war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). It was described as "the greatest trial in history" by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over them.[1] Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich. Martin Bormann had unknown to the Allies, died in May 1945 and was tried in absentia. Another defendant, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement.
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels had both committed suicide in the spring of 1945 to avoid capture. Heinrich Himmler attempted to commit suicide, but was captured before he could succeed; he committed suicide one day after being arrested by British forces.[3][4] Heinrich Müller disappeared the day after Hitler's suicide, the most senior figure of the Nazi regime whose fate remains unknown. Reinhard Heydrich had been assassinated by Czech partisans in 1942. Josef Terboven killed himself with dynamite in Norway in 1945. Adolf Eichmann fled to Argentina to avoid Allied capture, but was apprehended by Israel's intelligence service (Mossad) and hanged in 1962. Hermann Göring was sentenced to death, but committed suicide by consuming cyanide the night before his execution in defiance of his captors.
This article primarily deals with the first trial, which was conducted by the IMT. Further trials of lesser war criminals were conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the U.S. Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT), which included the Doctors' trial and the Judges' Trial.
The categorization of the crimes and the constitution of the court represented a juridical advance that would be used afterwards by the United Nations for the development of a specific international jurisprudence in matters of war crime, crimes against humanity, war of aggression, as well as got the creation of the International Criminal Court. The Nuremberg indictment also mentions genocide for the first time in international law (Count three, war crimes : "the extermination of racial and national groups, against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people and national, racial, or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.")[5]


DESE ARE DE FACTS

The fact that Hitler killed himself ought to tell us a lot. If he had proof he didn't commit atrocities why would he not just show the evidence?

 

[Odelschwanck]

I keep clicking this thread forgetting that it completely changed subjects.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

The fact that Hitler killed himself ought to tell us a lot. If he had proof he didn't commit atrocities why would he not just show the evidence?

Even this belief is subject to debate. There is no proof that Hitler actually died. Many believe he was spirited away after accomplishing his mission to destroy Germany, and lived out his days in South America. There is about as much evidence supporting Hitler's escape as there is evidence that he killed himself. None is conclusive.

And by the way, in a just court of law, one doesn't have to prove one's innocence. The prosecution has to prove one's guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[kaylagrl]

Even this belief is subject to debate. There is no proof that Hitler actually died. Many believe he was spirited away after accomplishing his mission to destroy Germany, and lived out his days in South America. There is about as much evidence supporting Hitler's escape as there is evidence that he killed himself. None is conclusive.

And by the way, in a just court of law, one doesn't have to prove one's innocence. The prosecution has to prove one's guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Well, a lot of people swear they saw Elvis eating a PB& J at their local Waffle House, doesn't make it fact. I highly doubt Hitler would be able to stay lost all these yrs. with the technology we have now. Not to mention they have continued to bring Nazi's to justice for all these yrs. since the Holocaust. They know the rumors and they would have been looking for him also.

If he had proof of his innocence it would still be given in a court of law. But that's a fruitless discussion because he was guilty. Again,why would he run if he knew he was innocent, same question applies.

 

[kaylagrl]

I keep clicking this thread forgetting that it completely changed subjects.

Well I don't usually try to run a thread into a ditch. But when it's something as serious as the Holocaust, you can bet I'm going to answer. But the two subjects are related. Planned Parenthood founder Margret Sanger practiced eugenics the same as Hitler and the Nazis did. He wanted a pure race,so did she. She was a racist and believed only certain people should be allowed to have children. So the link is there.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Well, a lot of people swear they saw Elvis eating a PB& J at their local Waffle House, doesn't make it fact. I highly doubt Hitler would be able to stay lost all these yrs. with the technology we have now. Not to mention they have continued to bring Nazi's to justice for all these yrs. since the Holocaust. They know the rumors and they would have been looking for him also.

Unlike Hitler, Elvis' body was not reportedly recovered by the Russians. Hitler's body was never positively identified, and the leader of the people who had allegedly recovered his body said later that Hitler had escaped to Spain. Subsequent autopsies also were inconclusive (I believe one finding the body was actually that of a female). Not exactly concrete proof the man had died.

The fact that no one found him later doesn't mean he wasn't there to be found. Perhaps no one was looking for him.

If he had proof of his innocence it would still be given in a court of law. But that's a fruitless discussion because he was guilty. Again,why would he run if he knew he was innocent, same question applies.

Guilty of what? Innocent of what? The fact remains we don't know exactly what crimes he was guilty of, and what crimes he wasn't, because there was never a trial.

 

[Dino246]

Guilty of what? Innocent of what? The fact remains we don't know exactly what crimes he was guilty of, and what crimes he wasn't, because there was never a trial.

If you think a trial makes someone guilty or innocent, you have a false view of justice. Hitler was the leader of a party that defied international law, dehumanized entire ethnic groups, invaded peaceful neighbours, directly caused the death of millions of their own people, and destroyed half of Europe.

No trial... therefore he's not guilty? Don't be a bloody fool.

 

[kaylagrl]

Unlike Hitler, Elvis' body was not reportedly recovered by the Russians. Hitler's body was never positively identified, and the leader of the people who had allegedly recovered his body said later that Hitler had escaped to Spain. Subsequent autopsies also were inconclusive (I believe one finding the body was actually that of a female). Not exactly concrete proof the man had died.

The fact that no one found him later doesn't mean he wasn't there to be found. Perhaps no one was looking for him.

Guilty of what? Innocent of what? The fact remains we don't know exactly what crimes he was guilty of, and what crimes he wasn't, because there was never a trial.

The fact that no one found him later doesn't mean he wasn't there to be found.

Perhaps no one was looking for him.

They would be looking for him, you can be certain of that. You can watch the History Channel and see stories of how Nazi's are being,or have been, brought to justice. If Hitler was out there they would be looking and people would not be able to keep a nugget like that a secret.

Guilty of what? Innocent of what? The fact remains we don't know exactly what crimes he was guilty of, and what crimes he wasn't, because there was never a trial.

So if you murder 3 woman and leave the country and the police can't find you does that make you not guilty just because you never had a trial. We do know what he was guilty of, we have evidence. Just because he killed himself, or started a Dairy Queen in Bermuda, and didn't make it to trail doesn't make him innocent. The evidence is enough to convict him.

 

[UnderGrace]

Even this belief is subject to debate. There is no proof that Hitler actually died. Many believe he was spirited away after accomplishing his mission to destroy Germany, and lived out his days in South America. There is about as much evidence supporting Hitler's escape as there is evidence that he killed himself. None is conclusive.

And by the way, in a just court of law, one doesn't have to prove one's innocence. The prosecution has to prove one's guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.

This is a very strange debate but it pains me not to reply to your faulty thinking

First of all Hitler was a public historical figure.

Therefore evidence is part of the historic public record,

The whole argument of a trial is non nonsensical and superfluous

No one needs a trial to know that approximately 5 million died in Holodomor or that over 25 000, (women and children in concentration camps) died through the scorched earth policy of the British during the Boer War

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

This is a very strange debate

It is indeed, but some here treat certain holocausts with a religious reverence that in my view should only be reserved for Christ.

but it pains me not to reply to your faulty thinking

I am sorrry that you are pained, but pleased you took time to respond.

First of all Hitler was a public historical figure.

Correct. I'm not arguing against Hitler's existence. I am arguing he was not the worst monster that ever lived, and certainly less a monster than most of the Communist monsters of the 20th century, at least so far as the evidence we have indicates.

Therefore evidence is part of the historic public record,

Correct. But - did Hitler order the extermination of 6 million or more people of any race or religion by gassing, followed by burning, as part of the historic public record? Do we have evidence of this, even off the historic public record, let alone on it? I'm not saying that the evidence doesn't exist, or that it never existed. But do we have it now, or did we ever have it, if it does indeed exist?

The whole argument of a trial is non nonsensical and superfluous

How so? My understanding is that the only evidence (if one can call it evidence) that exists of a systematic extermination of 6 million or more people of any particular race or religion by gassing and subsequent burning during World War II, are the testimonies of Nazi officers which were extracted under torture. Other evidences such as gas chambers, eye witness accounts etc. either are the subject of debate after detailed investigation and cross examination, or are inadequate to prove Hitler guilty of the aforementioned crime (possibly lesser crimes, but not the one under consideration). Therefore, if the testimonies of the Nazis are to be used as evidence against Hitler (invalidated in any legitimate court, as all testimony obtained via torture should be), Hitler should surely have the chance to defend himself against such claims? What important fact in the process of justice have I missed, to cause you such pain on this topic?

No one needs a trial to know that approximately 5 million died in Holodomor or that over 25 000, (women and children in concentration camps) died through the scorched earth policy of the British during the Boer War

I think it was more like 20 million deaths in the Holodomor, plus significantly more than 25,000 civilians in the Boer War (victims of the British). So even for these holocausts, if you will, we have a conflict. That's not to say that many people weren't murdered, but it is to say that there is absence of evidence to fully determine the number of victims. For the Stalin-Communist-instigated Ukrainian holocaust - the Holodomor - there is good evidence that the death toll was in multiples of millions. Unfortunately, for the deaths in German concentration camps during World War II, there are only good records of several hundred thousand dying. This is still a terrible statistic, but has any evidence of more than this perishing yet been found? If so, what is it? Also, even if it exists, how does such evidence indicate what religion or nationality the victims were, or doesn't it?

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

They would be looking for him, you can be certain of that. You can watch the History Channel and see stories of how Nazi's are being,or have been, brought to justice. If Hitler was out there they would be looking and people would not be able to keep a nugget like that a secret.

I guess it depends on whether Hitler was working with them, or against them. If Hitler was working with them, why should they want him brought to justice? Did you know the US imported many Nazis after World War II, rather than bringing them to trial? Does that not strike you as odd, given that you believe the Nazis were so evil and the Allies so good?

So if you murder 3 woman and leave the country and the police can't find you does that make you not guilty just because you never had a trial. We do know what he was guilty of, we have evidence. Just because he killed himself, or started a Dairy Queen in Bermuda, and didn't make it to trail doesn't make him innocent. The evidence is enough to convict him.

What evidence? Convict him of what? You're not understanding that just because there is evidence that someone murdered 3 women at a Dairy Queen in Bermuda, doesn't make him guilty of ordering the deaths by gassing of 6 million religious adherents. Evidence or proof of one crime isn't proof of another.