By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Most evil man: Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden?

Tyrannical on 02 April 2009

Vlad Tepes is a Hungarian national hero. He protected Europe from the Muslim invaders.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Around the Network
Rath on 02 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
Vlad Tepes is a Hungarian national hero. He protected Europe from the Muslim invaders.

 

Oh I'm not denying that he was a great leader at the time and defended Wallachia far better than he should have been able to considering what he was up against. He was still evil, there is a reason why he is known as 'the Impaler'.



Tyrannical on 02 April 2009

I gotta stick Karl Marx on the list.
I think Communism's bloody legacy is without equal in human history.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

donathos on 02 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
I gotta stick Karl Marx on the list.
I think Communism's bloody legacy is without equal in human history.

That's interesting...

I think Communism has been pretty damn bad to the world, though I don't know if Marx was able to envision or understand just quite what his legacy would wind up being.

I have to imagine that, could Marx have seen the 20th Century play out, he might have put a few clauses in the Manifesto about avoiding freedom-destroying douche dictators.  Not that it would make Communism a workable system, or healthy for people, I'm just not sure that Marx himself wanted blood on his hands (unlike some of the others on the list).



The Ghost of RubangB on 02 April 2009

Marx never hurt anybody.

Communes work great. Communist dictatorships don't. Marx wanted the workers to own the means of production. He didn't want dictators to murder the masses, invade territories at random, and censor the whole internet. That's kind of the exact opposite.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
Tyrannical on 02 April 2009
donathos said:
Tyrannical said:
I gotta stick Karl Marx on the list.
I think Communism's bloody legacy is without equal in human history.

That's interesting...

I think Communism has been pretty damn bad to the world, though I don't know if Marx was able to envision or understand just quite what his legacy would wind up being.

I have to imagine that, could Marx have seen the 20th Century play out, he might have put a few clauses in the Manifesto about avoiding freedom-destroying douche dictators.  Not that it would make Communism a workable system, or healthy for people, I'm just not sure that Marx himself wanted blood on his hands (unlike some of the others on the list).


Judge a tree by the fruit it bares.

Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Rath on 02 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
donathos said:
Tyrannical said:
I gotta stick Karl Marx on the list.
I think Communism's bloody legacy is without equal in human history.

That's interesting...

I think Communism has been pretty damn bad to the world, though I don't know if Marx was able to envision or understand just quite what his legacy would wind up being.

I have to imagine that, could Marx have seen the 20th Century play out, he might have put a few clauses in the Manifesto about avoiding freedom-destroying douche dictators.  Not that it would make Communism a workable system, or healthy for people, I'm just not sure that Marx himself wanted blood on his hands (unlike some of the others on the list).

 

Judge a tree by the fruit it bares.

Thats like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades.

 



Tyrannical on 02 April 2009
Rath said:

Thats like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades.

 

 

Jesus didn't preach class warfare, worker uprisings,  and the dictatorship of the proletariat.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Rath on 02 April 2009
Tyrannical said:
Rath said:

Thats like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades.

 

 

Jesus didn't preach class warfare, worker uprisings,  and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."



Tyrannical on 02 April 2009
Rath said:
Tyrannical said:
Rath said:

Thats like saying Jesus was evil because of the Crusades.

 

 

Jesus didn't preach class warfare, worker uprisings,  and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

 

Ha, that's a good one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_to_bring_a_sword

Other Christians[citation needed] hold that Jesus is using the word "sword" as a metaphor to describe the division that his message would bring between those who accept it and those who reject it. Indeed, the Aramaic word for "large knife" has the same meaning as "a tool for dividing, division". 

or

Alternatively, some see Paul as clarifying what was meant by a sword when he says in Ephesians 6:17, "And accept salvation as a helmet, and the word of God as the sword which the Spirit gives you." Therefore, by this interpretation, the sword is seen as a weapon of spiritual warfare, not physical violence.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire