In article <RzIJa.3305$Hj6.2905@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, USA@aol.com 
says...
>
>
>"Austin P. So (Hae Jin)" <haejin@netinfo.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:bd7gtu$34l$3@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
>> "USA" <USA@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:nkDIa.2357$k22.539@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> > Here's one I'll throw at you....is Adolph Hitler a War Criminal?
>> > I'm sure we all agree that he is...but do we ever call him one?
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Ah...I see...
>>
>> You understand and agree that Hitler was a war criminal despite that f
>act
>> that he was not tried under court and therefore under legal terms "gui
>lty"
>> of war crimes.
>>
>> By that argument, you also seem to agree that Hirohito may have been a
> war
>> criminal, only that because he didn't face a tribunal, didn't face any
>> charges, and therefore not guilty of war crimes in any legal sense.
>>
>> In other words, you actually agree with Kay.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>
>You seem to have missed the point Austin. Or deliberately walked around 
>it.
>The fact is we DON'T call or label Adolph Hitler a War Criminal.
>Why don't you take a wild guess why we don't.
>Same applies for Benito Mussolini.

What difference does it make whether he
was tred or not?  

Hitler was responsible to start the war.
Hitler was responsible for the genocide.
How can you say he is not a war criminal
while you call his generals and ministers
who were found guilty at Nurenberg war crimianls?

It's like cronic arguments of the right wing
Americans who say Clinton is a liar because he
lied under oath but Bush is not because he
lied but not under oath.  Lie is a lie is a lie
in my book.  If the evidence proves that they
lied, they are both liars.