View Poll Results: The Worst Genocidal Murderer in History

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • Adolf Hitler

    16 18.39%
  • Andrew Jackson

    0 0%
  • Hernan Cortes

    1 1.15%
  • Josef Stalin

    33 37.93%
  • Mao Zedong

    24 27.59%
  • Genghis Khan

    8 9.20%
  • Nero

    2 2.30%
  • Emperor Hirohito

    0 0%
  • Tamerlane

    3 3.45%
  • Maximilien Robespierre

    0 0%
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 151

Thread: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

  1. #51
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Not really... most Islamic Caliphates were tolerant of other religions. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived at peace in the Islamic world for centuries for the most part. It was in fact the Christian world that was the murdering bastards when it came to other religions and even other Christian sects.. the UK went through centuries of Catholic vs Protestant wars as did much of Europe.
    The Christian reformation. Something the Islamic world has failed to do, which is why it is in the state it is in. Imagine Christianity today without a protestant movement. But slaughter on the European continent was more a European thing than a Christian thing. Or did Europeans need Christianity to create two world wars? In the end, violence on the European continent was about tribe. You all have proven to merely be the Middle East Lite.

    But you seem to be glossing over the very real blood shed and oppression between Islamic tribes down through the centuries across the region. There were plenty of occasions where violence was sparked between rival caliphates. Plenty of occassion where tribes within Islam were suppressed for the greater good of Arab empire. Of course, then there were the "purification jihads" on the Arabian peninsula where religious structures were destroyed and non-adherents to Sunni Islam were slaughtered. And are you aware that Islamic extremists for a century have murdered far more of their own Muslims than Westerners? By all means, enjoy criticizing Christianity, but don't do it while glorifying an ignorant perception of Islam.

    Living in "peace" in the Islamic world meant certain taxes for being non-Islamic. It also meant certain restrictions on religious freedom and structures. In other words, as long as they behaved and followed the rules, they were "tolerated." Did you know that in Saudi Arabia today, the Shia are denied the right to name their children certain names that might offend the Sunni tribe? And that they are denied certain religious freedoms? And that they are held to different laws than the Sunni? And that the House of Saud is famous for funding thousands of schools throughout the world and the fundamental base of these schools is to legitimize the Sunni school of thought? Some would call such things oppression or age old colonialism within the Islamic world. I guess others call it "peace."

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #52
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,986

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    Oh, yes, the Holocaust is often held up as the defining "genocide" of history, and, in many ways, it is -- an unprecendented, systematic execution of entire races of people. But genocides aren't a 20th century invention...
    But they were perfected on the European continent in the 20th century. Even the genocide of native Americans on the North American continent began with European engineering. And long after Americans recognized the sin of the genocide across the U.S., Europe was still practicing genocide on the European landscape. Of course, it's not popular to acknowledge that Americans not only voluntarily chose to face the moral consenquences of genocide on the American landscape, but had to force Europeans to face theirs on their own landscape a century later.
    Last edited by MSgt; 08-26-10 at 10:10 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    But they were perfected on the European continent in the 20th century. Even the genocide of native Americans on the North American continent began with European engineering. And long after Americans recognized the sin of the genocide across the U.S., Europe was still practicing genocide on the European landscape. Of course, it's not popular to acknowledge that Americans not only voluntarily chose to face the moral consenquences of genocide on the American landscape, but had to force Europeans to face theirs on their own landscape a century later.
    Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

    The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

    What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

    Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

    Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

    As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

    Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.

  4. #54
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

    The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

    What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

    Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

    Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

    As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

    Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.
    that appears to contain alot of psychobabble. war crimes in Korea compared to what the PRC and North Koreans did? Full napalm genocide in Vietnam? we lost in Vietnam because we wouldn't crush Hanoi and bomb the dikes.


    I realize eurosocialists hate what America stands for but that is just plain stupid

    remind us how we treated a country that we crushed pretty much on our own-Japan.



  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    that appears to contain alot of psychobabble. war crimes in Korea compared to what the PRC and North Koreans did? Full napalm genocide in Vietnam? we lost in Vietnam because we wouldn't crush Hanoi and bomb the dikes.


    I realize eurosocialists hate what America stands for but that is just plain stupid

    remind us how we treated a country that we crushed pretty much on our own-Japan.

    For your first statement -- where is the proclaimed psychobabble? All I see is a decent amount of hard evidence that refutes the claims of the previous poster, who said something along the lines of "America's a noble and honourable country and it went over to Europe and showed those nasty Europeans how things are done, thank God for America and its great track record of not committing war crimes and genocides, cos, um, its Mehrikuh", or something to that tune. I simply gave some evidence to the contrary, and if you'd like more, you need only ask -- there's no real historian on Earth who backs the claim that America is somehow more morally upstanding than Europe.

    For your next gem of idiocy -- try not to use words like "Eurosocialist" in a negative light, because to that small group of 6.4 billion people living outside of America, socialism (especially European Union-style), is the most successful and competent socioeconomic theory on the planet. I would like to point out that us "Eurosocialists" don't hate what America stands for -- we just think you're backwards tools. It isn't fitting for us to hate lesser beings. XD

    On a more serious note, however, I would like to point you to the current economic situation as compared between America and Europe. The socialist (gasp!) European Union has weather the economic crisis exponentially better than America has, and the EU has even seen growth in several sectors across the board -- not to mention that the EU successfully bailed out Greece, and prevented Spain and Portugal from falling into economic ruin. If that's not a resounding endorsement of socialism, I don't know what is. America, on the other hand, still has unemployment levels in the teens. How... Impressive.

    And your last point (wrong, as ever) -- America did not crush Japan on its own. That's prepostrous, and a total re-writing of history. In the Pacific War, America was one of many players, as they were in Europe (albeit, in Europe, America was a much more minor player). In the Pacific, I could point you to a dozen-and-one pivotal battles which the Americans didn't take part in, in any way. Firstly, one should look at the defense of Australia -- the first major check against the Japanese in the entire war. Who defended Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea? The Americans? Oh, no, sorry -- that'd be the Australians. When the Japanese were making advances into India, who fought them? The Americans? Nope, sorry, again, the British Empire. Alright, well, surely the Americans were pivotal in MOST of the Japanese Army's combat, right? Er, no, sorry, the Americans didn't even join the war until 1941 -- the Chinese fought the Japanese Army for the same amount of time as the Americans did, four whole years, ON THEIR OWN. Well, that's just China, right, the Japanese were all over the Pacific! What about Vietnam, or Thailand? What's that, you say? The French Colonial forces pushed the Japanese out of large parts of Indochina? Huh, I didn't know the Americans spoke French. Alright, well, here's one -- the Americans were DEFINITELY the ones who ended the War in the Pacific, right, cos everyone else had dropped out? Oh, no, funny, that -- the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and fought Japan's Kwantung Army -- 70% of all Japanese land forces, and then poised themselves to invade Hokkaido, the northern Japanese Home Island.

    I'm not trying to downplay any of the American victories in the Pacific -- don't get me wrong, America WAS vital in the War in the Pacific, and I'm very glad the Americans helped fight the Japanese there. But it's ignorant and disrespectful to all the other non-Americans who fought and died in the Pacific to say that America won that theatre of the war on its own.

    Anyway, got anything else to throw at me, or, are you done?

  6. #56
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    Are you a child, or just someone who regularly listens to FOX News?

    The Americans have always, since the start of your young nation, been behind the curb of progress, compared to Europe (especially Britain, France and Germany). I could list innumerable examples of how America is still in the 19th century compared to Europe (stem cell research bans, lack of universal healthcare, shoddy welfare, total disregard for enriched education), but that's not what I'm going to debate right now -- those are universally accepted facts, anyway.

    What I'm going to incredulously question you on is how exactly you think the Americans "voluntarily chose to face the moral consequences of genocide". America has done nothing of the sort, apart from a mere pittance of money given to the American Indians still living on reservations for "past crimes" -- America would sooner balk than admit it was the perpetrator of a continent-wide genocide.

    Furthermore, in no way did the Americans come over to Europe to "force Europeans to face" our own moral failings with the genocides we've committed -- it's prepostrous. The Americans weren't liberators or saviours or heroes, as much as Hollywood would like to re-write history as such -- no, the Americans were, on the grand scale of World War II, a bunch of pragmatic cowards who stayed out of the war as long as they could, and then only joined in on the side they knew would win already due to the sacrifices of greater nations.

    Where, in that, do you see America showing the Europeans the 'wrongness of their ways'?

    As I recall, only a few short years later, the Americans were committing their own war crimes in Korea, and then committing full-on napalm-style genocide in Vietnam.

    Oh, yes, those upstanding Americans surely hold the high-ground over us measly, intolerant Europeans.
    Meh. This is so much bs I wouldn't even know where to begin.

    I chose Stalin who killed Soviet citizens, Soviet-sphere citizens, and foreigners on numerous levels... political opposition, ethnic cleansing, and military doctrine to name a few.

    אשכנזי היהודי Белый Россию

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    Meh. This is so much bs I wouldn't even know where to begin.

    I chose Stalin who killed Soviet citizens, Soviet-sphere citizens, and foreigners on numerous levels... political opposition, ethnic cleansing, and military doctrine to name a few.
    Care to explain what's BS about it, or, is this just some anti-left knee-jerk reaction?



    On another note, I agree, Stalin's a pretty good choice. His damage to the reputation of the USSR was... Incalculable.

  8. #58
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,574

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    For your first statement -- where is the proclaimed psychobabble? All I see is a decent amount of hard evidence that refutes the claims of the previous poster, who said something along the lines of "America's a noble and honourable country and it went over to Europe and showed those nasty Europeans how things are done, thank God for America and its great track record of not committing war crimes and genocides, cos, um, its Mehrikuh", or something to that tune. I simply gave some evidence to the contrary, and if you'd like more, you need only ask -- there's no real historian on Earth who backs the claim that America is somehow more morally upstanding than Europe.

    For your next gem of idiocy -- try not to use words like "Eurosocialist" in a negative light, because to that small group of 6.4 billion people living outside of America, socialism (especially European Union-style), is the most successful and competent socioeconomic theory on the planet. I would like to point out that us "Eurosocialists" don't hate what America stands for -- we just think you're backwards tools. It isn't fitting for us to hate lesser beings. XD

    On a more serious note, however, I would like to point you to the current economic situation as compared between America and Europe. The socialist (gasp!) European Union has weather the economic crisis exponentially better than America has, and the EU has even seen growth in several sectors across the board -- not to mention that the EU successfully bailed out Greece, and prevented Spain and Portugal from falling into economic ruin. If that's not a resounding endorsement of socialism, I don't know what is. America, on the other hand, still has unemployment levels in the teens. How... Impressive.

    And your last point (wrong, as ever) -- America did not crush Japan on its own. That's prepostrous, and a total re-writing of history. In the Pacific War, America was one of many players, as they were in Europe (albeit, in Europe, America was a much more minor player). In the Pacific, I could point you to a dozen-and-one pivotal battles which the Americans didn't take part in, in any way. Firstly, one should look at the defense of Australia -- the first major check against the Japanese in the entire war. Who defended Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea? The Americans? Oh, no, sorry -- that'd be the Australians. When the Japanese were making advances into India, who fought them? The Americans? Nope, sorry, again, the British Empire. Alright, well, surely the Americans were pivotal in MOST of the Japanese Army's combat, right? Er, no, sorry, the Americans didn't even join the war until 1941 -- the Chinese fought the Japanese Army for the same amount of time as the Americans did, four whole years, ON THEIR OWN. Well, that's just China, right, the Japanese were all over the Pacific! What about Vietnam, or Thailand? What's that, you say? The French Colonial forces pushed the Japanese out of large parts of Indochina? Huh, I didn't know the Americans spoke French. Alright, well, here's one -- the Americans were DEFINITELY the ones who ended the War in the Pacific, right, cos everyone else had dropped out? Oh, no, funny, that -- the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and fought Japan's Kwantung Army -- 70% of all Japanese land forces, and then poised themselves to invade Hokkaido, the northern Japanese Home Island.

    I'm not trying to downplay any of the American victories in the Pacific -- don't get me wrong, America WAS vital in the War in the Pacific, and I'm very glad the Americans helped fight the Japanese there. But it's ignorant and disrespectful to all the other non-Americans who fought and died in the Pacific to say that America won that theatre of the war on its own.

    Anyway, got anything else to throw at me, or, are you done?
    socialism is a disease of losers and those who wish to become rich without earning it by pandering to the losers

    nothing more nothing less



  9. #59
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    And you clearly have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, you have lost any and all credibility, first of all the Muslims went to war with eachother since the begining of their religion (Shia-Sunni split) they were not tolerant of other religions whatsoever in fact Mohammad himself conducted ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Jewish Banu tribes of the Arabian Peninsula , the conducted the single largest intentional genocide until Hitler and Stalin which they perpetrated against the Hindu and Buddhists of the Indian Subcontinent. This "tolerance" of other religions only applied to the monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism, and this tolerance came in the form of centuries of conquest pogroms, ethnic cleansing, forced conversions, etc and if they managed to make it through all that they were allowed to live as third class dhimmi's.

    Seriously spare me your apologetic west = bad, east = good BS, organized religion = bad, and Islam = even worse than Christianity.
    Oh spare me with this "Islam is bad" crap. Get your facts straight. Christianity was the backward intolerant religion of the Middle Ages.. there is a reason that it is called the Dark ages. And during that time Islam was the tolerant forward thinking religion of the day, and it was Islam that saved much of the ancient knowledge, knowledge that Christianity tried to destroy. Ever heard of Al-Andalus around the 800s and 900s? It was considered the most perfect civilization ever to exist on earth, since all 3 major religions of the region lived in peace under Islamic rule and were equals. During this time, the Christian's were still burning books and force converting non-believers.

    I have never ever stated that Islam during the middle ages was perfect.. there was civil war, sects battling each other and other religions. But during the golden age of Islam from 700 to 1300ish, it was Islam that was the center of technology, wisdom and tolerance. And all this while, Christianity was in a dark hole of death and destruction, and it was not until the 1600s that Christianity really started to get out of its near 1000 year hole of stupidity. Now there is no doubt that Islam started to fall behind due to radicalism, stupidity and lack of innovation in religion during the 1300s and forward, but there is no denying that before this Islam was far more tolerant and progressive on almost every single front when compared to Christianity.

    Yes Christianity had its reformation and learned from its 1000+ years of mistakes, but it did not come willingly by any means. And yes Islam could use a reformation it self no doubt about that, but that does not mean in any way that the history of Islam should be in some way tainted by the morons of modern times.
    PeteEU

  10. #60
    DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
    Apocalypse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    17,188

    Re: Worst Genocidal Mass-Murderer In History

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    I would like to point out that the word "genocide" has a meaning, people. It's the systematic extermination of a people group (i.e. Hitler), not just another word for "mass murder" (i.e. Stalin).
    ^

    Yeah, that.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."

    Dante Alighieri

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •