Why not? People are allowed to idolize Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin and heck Trump was saying Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqis a few months ago. Jesse Owens for example used to say good things about Hitler, which is ironic being his name is often used in the opposite light by American Historians.
I didn't say he couldn't Idolize hitler all I said is wow. He's allowed to idolize whom ever he wishes. It's funny that you have a problem with someone idolizing a man who was just a war mongerer trying to unite all countries surrounding macodon, but you have no criticisms about a man who advocated for a genocide of a people. Interesting...
Why not? People are allowed to idolize Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin and heck Trump was saying Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqis a few mo… morenths ago. Jesse Owens for example used to say good things about Hitler, which is ironic being his name is often used in the opposite light by American Historians.
"Just" saying. lol
I didn't say he couldn't Idolize hitler all I said is wow. He's allowed to idolize whom ever he wishes. It's funny that you have a problem w… moreith someone idolizing a man who was just a war mongerer trying to unite all countries surrounding macodon, but you have no criticisms about a man who advocated for a genocide of a people. Interesting...
I didn't say he couldn't Idolize hitler all I said is wow. He's allowed to idolize whom ever he wishes. It's funny that you have a problem w… moreith someone idolizing a man who was just a war mongerer trying to unite all countries surrounding macodon, but you have no criticisms about a man who advocated for a genocide of a people. Interesting...
And again I never said that he didn't do that, I simply said he was a warmonger. I know he slaughtered people. That's the basic definition of warmongering after all. And again I read about his conquest a million of times.
But the difference is the time. Genocide wasn't frowned upon during 350bc as it was during the 1900s. And again Alex was a product of his time. But yes it was still genocide. But that doesn't touch on the fact their was no criticism on your part about hitler.
I don't know, some people really like hitler and not just because of the horrors he committed. I heard he also did a few good things for germany. You could be one of those people. It's not a bad thing, it only your opinion.
Myself. The last person I might have been willing to swear allegiance to died in 1938.
Who knows, maybe a Kalki-figure or a leader deserving the title of Chakravartin - someone actually worth following - will come along before the end of this Age (to preserve it or to bring about its end?), but I doubt it.
I don't have to. To put it this way if you think it's okay to idolize Alexander then it should be Okay to do so for Hitler. It doesn't matter what was okay at that time or not, as by today standards of morality you shouldn't idolize someone who did such things even if it was thousands of years ago. People were committing genocides right up into the 20th Century, some even since WWII, and the only reason people care so much about "Hitler's" is because he lost, didn't get to white wash it, and that he did it toward "Europeans" and not towards some underdeveloped nations half way across the world.
So I'm not the one being a hypocrite.
Lets put it this why, you Idolize Alexander but was he any greater than Ganghis Khan? We demonize Ganghis Khan, he did horrific things, horrible things, he conquered a much larger empire than Alexander did as well. And oh my, he did these things thousands of years ago as well. So why is Alexander treated so special? Because he has been romanticized by Greek culture and nothing more. The argument that "Oh it was okay to do that back then" Doesn't hold water personally. Since we don't use that argument when talking about other monsters from Ancient times.
The only real difference is one was romanticized and the other demonized. Get the point? Criticizing one is criticizing the other as I view them relatively the same way.
And again I never said that he didn't do that, I simply said he was a warmonger. I know he slaughtered people. That's the basic definition o… moref warmongering after all. And again I read about his conquest a million of times.
But the difference is the time. Genocide wasn't frowned upon during 350bc as it was during the 1900s. And again Alex was a product of his time. But yes it was still genocide. But that doesn't touch on the fact their was no criticism on your part about hitler.
I'm not sure how serious all of this is, but what exactly is the appeal of Trump?
I understand people who like his protectionist trade policies, I'm one of them, but I don't think that's the majority of fans on this forum, so I'm thinking this is either a) satirical, or b) a was to stick it to the 'sjws,' as though Donald Trump is going to 'defeat social justice.'
Not to impune Trump or portray the 'social justice movement' as good or invulnerable, but I hate to break it to you that the President of the United States has more important things to do, like negotiate missile defense in Northeast Asia, secure potential NATO defense of the Baltics, alleviate the trade deficit, etc., than make sure Milo Yiannopoulos is allowed back on twitter.
See and again you're thinking I'm saying idolizing Alexander is better than Hitler. No. As I said I'm okay with people idolizing anyone they want. I'm addressing you criticizing Alex, but say nothing about Hitler even though you claim they are virtually the same. You even go further in another post saying:
Why not? People are allowed to idolize Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin etc..
Basically saying yes it's okay to idolize Hitler why not, but you seem to have a problem with Alex. Criticizing my post. That's the hypocrisy right there, especially when you think they're virtually the same. In that post you try and defend the other poster right to idolize Hitler but you have a problem with me idolizing Alex? My problem is where's the criticism of Hitler, period.
Edit: Also criticizing one is not criticizing the other, especially when you defend the other user right of idolizing Hitler, but blatantly have a problem with me idolizing Alex.
I don't have to. To put it this way if you think it's okay to idolize Alexander then it should be Okay to do so for Hitler. It doesn't mat… moreter what was okay at that time or not, as by today standards of morality you shouldn't idolize someone who did such things even if it was thousands of years ago. People were committing genocides right up into the 20th Century, some even since WWII, and the only reason people care so much about "Hitler's" is because he lost, didn't get to white wash it, and that he did it toward "Europeans" and not towards some underdeveloped nations half way across the world.
So I'm not the one being a hypocrite.
Lets put it this why, you Idolize Alexander but was he any greater than Ganghis Khan? We demonize Ganghis Khan, he did horrific things, horrible things, he conquered a much larger empire than Alexander did as well. And oh my, he did these things thousands of years ago as well. So why is Alexander treate… [view original content]
I don't know, some people really like hitler and not just because of the horrors he committed. I heard he also did a few good things for germany. You could be one of those people. It's not a bad thing, it only your opinion.
Myself. The last person I might have been willing to swear allegiance to died in 1938.
Who knows, maybe a Kalki-figure or a leader deservi… moreng the title of Chakravartin - someone actually worth following - will come along before the end of this Age (to preserve it or to bring about its end?), but I doubt it.
I'm not sure how serious all of this is, but what exactly is the appeal of Trump?
I understand people who like his protectionist trade po… morelicies, I'm one of them, but I don't think that's the majority of fans on this forum, so I'm thinking this is either a) satirical, or b) a was to stick it to the 'sjws,' as though Donald Trump is going to 'defeat social justice.'
Not to impune Trump or portray the 'social justice movement' as good or invulnerable, but I hate to break it to you that the President of the United States has more important things to do, like negotiate missile defense in Northeast Asia, secure potential NATO defense of the Baltics, alleviate the trade deficit, etc., than make sure Milo Yiannopoulos is allowed back on twitter.
Without conflict, no progress. Without destruction, no renewal. Alexander and Genghis may not have been "good" or even "nice" people by today's standards (the same could be said about Abraham and Moses, btw), but they were both great generals - and extraordinary men - who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever. They were fierce tigers, not castrated house cats. Why shouldn't we admire them?
Hitler, on the other hand, was not a tiger. He was a demagogue, not a general. A puny and resentful, albeit charismatic man with a utopian vision - the most dangerous kind there is. Same goes for Stalin.
I don't have to. To put it this way if you think it's okay to idolize Alexander then it should be Okay to do so for Hitler. It doesn't mat… moreter what was okay at that time or not, as by today standards of morality you shouldn't idolize someone who did such things even if it was thousands of years ago. People were committing genocides right up into the 20th Century, some even since WWII, and the only reason people care so much about "Hitler's" is because he lost, didn't get to white wash it, and that he did it toward "Europeans" and not towards some underdeveloped nations half way across the world.
So I'm not the one being a hypocrite.
Lets put it this why, you Idolize Alexander but was he any greater than Ganghis Khan? We demonize Ganghis Khan, he did horrific things, horrible things, he conquered a much larger empire than Alexander did as well. And oh my, he did these things thousands of years ago as well. So why is Alexander treate… [view original content]
Without conflict, no progress. Without destruction, no renewal. Alexander and Genghis may not have been "good" or even "nice" people by toda… morey's standards (the same could be said about Abraham and Moses, btw), but they were both great generals - and extraordinary men - who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever. They were fierce tigers, not castrated house cats. Why shouldn't we admire them?
Hitler, on the other hand, was not a tiger. He was a demagogue, not a general. A puny and resentful, albeit charismatic man with a utopian vision - the most dangerous kind there is. Same goes for Stalin.
See and again you're thinking I'm saying idolizing Alexander is better than Hitler. No. As I said I'm okay with people idolizing anyone they… more want. I'm addressing you criticizing Alex, but say nothing about Hitler even though you claim they are virtually the same. You even go further in another post saying:
Why not? People are allowed to idolize Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin etc..
Basically saying yes it's okay to idolize Hitler why not, but you seem to have a problem with Alex. Criticizing my post. That's the hypocrisy right there, especially when you think they're virtually the same. In that post you try and defend the other poster right to idolize Hitler but you have a problem with me idolizing Alex? My problem is where's the criticism of Hitler, period.
Edit: Also criticizing one is not criticizing the other, especially when you defend the other user right of idolizing Hitler, but blatantly have a problem with me idolizing Alex.
I don't know, as much as I dislike Hillary, Trump is a wild card, and I think he can go either way, either super 'whatever-works-for-business' or 'I'll-say-whatever-to-get-elect-but-I'm-actually-competent-and-not-nearly-as-corrupt." I can't tell. Either way, I'll be writing in Bernie, Thank you.
Okay lets put this simple.
* His comment was a Joke.
* My comment was a Pun on the Fact you Idolized Alexander but didn't approve of h… moreis Hitler Comment
* Of course I didn't mention Alexander in that post hoping you'd get the point by mention other megalomaniacs.
It all flew right over your head, seems to still be.
who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever.
It's funny because you just described Hitler's effect on modern history right there. There was this little thing called WWII, the massive rise in Socialistic ideals of the 1930s which also effected the USA under Roosevelt. To say Hitler didn't change the world, strike fear into the hearts of hundreds of millions of people.... it's pure folly.
Just saying, likely within a few hundred years, maybe a thousand, he will be the next Genghis? Still talked about negatively but admired none the less. Also Genghis didn't conquer his empire by himself. He had generals that did most of the fighting. His empire was actually his "Son's" who actually made it into the massive empire we know, he just started it. He also had advantages like mounted archers, the largest cavalry force in the ancient world as well, he didn't have to be a smart man to win battles.
Without conflict, no progress. Without destruction, no renewal. Alexander and Genghis may not have been "good" or even "nice" people by toda… morey's standards (the same could be said about Abraham and Moses, btw), but they were both great generals - and extraordinary men - who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever. They were fierce tigers, not castrated house cats. Why shouldn't we admire them?
Hitler, on the other hand, was not a tiger. He was a demagogue, not a general. A puny and resentful, albeit charismatic man with a utopian vision - the most dangerous kind there is. Same goes for Stalin.
Genghis united the Mongolian tribes that had been at war for ages, thus creating the largest cavalry force in the world - he was not born into it. He also led plenty of campaigns himself, conquering vast parts of Central Asia. And yes, his sons expanded the empire significantly. Many of his descendents were great conquerors.
And why do you mention America and Roosevelt like that? I'm not American.
who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever.
It's funny because you just described Hitler's effect on modern history ri… moreght there. There was this little thing called WWII, the massive rise in Socialistic ideals of the 1930s which also effected the USA under Roosevelt. To say Hitler didn't change the world, strike fear into the hearts of hundreds of millions of people.... it's pure folly.
Just saying, likely within a few hundred years, maybe a thousand, he will be the next Genghis? Still talked about negatively but admired none the less. Also Genghis didn't conquer his empire by himself. He had generals that did most of the fighting. His empire was actually his "Son's" who actually made it into the massive empire we know, he just started it. He also had advantages like mounted archers, the largest cavalry force in the ancient world as well, he didn't have to be a smart man to win battles.
who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever.
It's funny because you just described Hitler's effect on modern history ri… moreght there. There was this little thing called WWII, the massive rise in Socialistic ideals of the 1930s which also effected the USA under Roosevelt. To say Hitler didn't change the world, strike fear into the hearts of hundreds of millions of people.... it's pure folly.
Just saying, likely within a few hundred years, maybe a thousand, he will be the next Genghis? Still talked about negatively but admired none the less. Also Genghis didn't conquer his empire by himself. He had generals that did most of the fighting. His empire was actually his "Son's" who actually made it into the massive empire we know, he just started it. He also had advantages like mounted archers, the largest cavalry force in the ancient world as well, he didn't have to be a smart man to win battles.
Have you just forsaken your own religion! BLERSPHEMY! Lord Kenneth may be godly, but his powers could only be achieved through his father, Lord Gavin!
Gavin used his almighty aura to breath life into a fallen Kenneth. And thus, on the third day he was resurrected. Gavin breathed life not only into his son, but all of humanity! And you forsake him?!?
I weep for you, fallen follower. May you never feel the touch of the raggedly beard!
Aléxandros ho Mégas
I love reading about his crusade. He's my favorite historical figure. I dare say I'd give my life for the man if I were living at that time.
The way you worded it it sounded implied. Yes I know sons plural. Typo, brain heard Son with S and autonomic function caused me to do Son's. Roosevelt? Because most Americans don't like the word Socialism being involved with the USA. So USA/Roosevelt is a good example of how Socialism effected the USA, a country that tries to take pride in not being Socialist. As an American it's a very good example of Hitler and Mussolini's effect on societies outside their own countries during the 1930s.
Where did I say that he didn't?
Genghis united the Mongolian tribes that had been at war for ages, thus creating the largest cavalry forc… moree in the world - he was not born into it. He also led plenty of campaigns himself, conquering vast parts of Central Asia. And yes, his sons expanded the empire significantly. Many of his descendents were great conquerors.
And why do you mention America and Roosevelt like that? I'm not American.
How is that possible? Both of his children died before they had children. And he didn't have siblings. But awesome, if you are. I'm half Greek, that's all I share with the the man.
Comments
Why not? People are allowed to idolize Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Putin and heck Trump was saying Saddam was a good thing for the Iraqis a few months ago. Jesse Owens for example used to say good things about Hitler, which is ironic being his name is often used in the opposite light by American Historians.
"Just" saying. lol
I didn't say he couldn't Idolize hitler all I said is wow. He's allowed to idolize whom ever he wishes. It's funny that you have a problem with someone idolizing a man who was just a war mongerer trying to unite all countries surrounding macodon, but you have no criticisms about a man who advocated for a genocide of a people. Interesting...
Haha, Thats what I thought this thread was about before I clicked on it.
You know I was joking, right?
Sure like Alexander "Didn't" commit genocide. Should look up some of his conquest, he literally wiped out entire peoples in some of his campaigns. =D
And again I never said that he didn't do that, I simply said he was a warmonger. I know he slaughtered people. That's the basic definition of warmongering after all. And again I read about his conquest a million of times.
But the difference is the time. Genocide wasn't frowned upon during 350bc as it was during the 1900s. And again Alex was a product of his time. But yes it was still genocide. But that doesn't touch on the fact their was no criticism on your part about hitler.
I don't know, some people really like hitler and not just because of the horrors he committed. I heard he also did a few good things for germany. You could be one of those people. It's not a bad thing, it only your opinion.
Harambe's ghost
Myself. The last person I might have been willing to swear allegiance to died in 1938.
Who knows, maybe a Kalki-figure or a leader deserving the title of Chakravartin - someone actually worth following - will come along before the end of this Age (to preserve it or to bring about its end?), but I doubt it.
I don't have to. To put it this way if you think it's okay to idolize Alexander then it should be Okay to do so for Hitler. It doesn't matter what was okay at that time or not, as by today standards of morality you shouldn't idolize someone who did such things even if it was thousands of years ago. People were committing genocides right up into the 20th Century, some even since WWII, and the only reason people care so much about "Hitler's" is because he lost, didn't get to white wash it, and that he did it toward "Europeans" and not towards some underdeveloped nations half way across the world.
So I'm not the one being a hypocrite.
Lets put it this why, you Idolize Alexander but was he any greater than Ganghis Khan? We demonize Ganghis Khan, he did horrific things, horrible things, he conquered a much larger empire than Alexander did as well. And oh my, he did these things thousands of years ago as well. So why is Alexander treated so special? Because he has been romanticized by Greek culture and nothing more. The argument that "Oh it was okay to do that back then" Doesn't hold water personally. Since we don't use that argument when talking about other monsters from Ancient times.
The only real difference is one was romanticized and the other demonized. Get the point? Criticizing one is criticizing the other as I view them relatively the same way.
Yoda
Lex Luthor
Tywin Lannister
Euron Greyjoy
Lee Everett
Morgan Freeman
I'm not sure how serious all of this is, but what exactly is the appeal of Trump?
I understand people who like his protectionist trade policies, I'm one of them, but I don't think that's the majority of fans on this forum, so I'm thinking this is either a) satirical, or b) a was to stick it to the 'sjws,' as though Donald Trump is going to 'defeat social justice.'
Not to impune Trump or portray the 'social justice movement' as good or invulnerable, but I hate to break it to you that the President of the United States has more important things to do, like negotiate missile defense in Northeast Asia, secure potential NATO defense of the Baltics, alleviate the trade deficit, etc., than make sure Milo Yiannopoulos is allowed back on twitter.
See and again you're thinking I'm saying idolizing Alexander is better than Hitler. No. As I said I'm okay with people idolizing anyone they want. I'm addressing you criticizing Alex, but say nothing about Hitler even though you claim they are virtually the same. You even go further in another post saying:
Basically saying yes it's okay to idolize Hitler why not, but you seem to have a problem with Alex. Criticizing my post. That's the hypocrisy right there, especially when you think they're virtually the same. In that post you try and defend the other poster right to idolize Hitler but you have a problem with me idolizing Alex? My problem is where's the criticism of Hitler, period.
Edit: Also criticizing one is not criticizing the other, especially when you defend the other user right of idolizing Hitler, but blatantly have a problem with me idolizing Alex.
I see you guys really old man dick.
no, it's a horrible thing.
1938? Who was that?
The fact that he'll be a better president than Shillary.
You also swore allegiance to Jesus Christ?
Without conflict, no progress. Without destruction, no renewal. Alexander and Genghis may not have been "good" or even "nice" people by today's standards (the same could be said about Abraham and Moses, btw), but they were both great generals - and extraordinary men - who bent the world to their wills and changed it forever. They were fierce tigers, not castrated house cats. Why shouldn't we admire them?
Hitler, on the other hand, was not a tiger. He was a demagogue, not a general. A puny and resentful, albeit charismatic man with a utopian vision - the most dangerous kind there is. Same goes for Stalin.
I don't think there's anything wrong with admiring the good someone's done.
D'Annunzio.
Looks more like Odin.
Well said!
Okay lets put this simple.
It all flew right over your head, seems to still be.
I don't know, as much as I dislike Hillary, Trump is a wild card, and I think he can go either way, either super 'whatever-works-for-business' or 'I'll-say-whatever-to-get-elect-but-I'm-actually-competent-and-not-nearly-as-corrupt." I can't tell. Either way, I'll be writing in Bernie, Thank you.
whether his comment was a joke or not has nothing to do with anything.
Oh now your comment was a pun, HA HA.
Riiight.
It's funny because you just described Hitler's effect on modern history right there. There was this little thing called WWII, the massive rise in Socialistic ideals of the 1930s which also effected the USA under Roosevelt. To say Hitler didn't change the world, strike fear into the hearts of hundreds of millions of people.... it's pure folly.
Just saying, likely within a few hundred years, maybe a thousand, he will be the next Genghis? Still talked about negatively but admired none the less. Also Genghis didn't conquer his empire by himself. He had generals that did most of the fighting. His empire was actually his "Son's" who actually made it into the massive empire we know, he just started it. He also had advantages like mounted archers, the largest cavalry force in the ancient world as well, he didn't have to be a smart man to win battles.
Where did I say that he didn't?
Genghis united the Mongolian tribes that had been at war for ages, thus creating the largest cavalry force in the world - he was not born into it. He also led plenty of campaigns himself, conquering vast parts of Central Asia. And yes, his sons expanded the empire significantly. Many of his descendents were great conquerors.
And why do you mention America and Roosevelt like that? I'm not American.
Bah. Double-post.
He would bring world peace after his first speech, melts the hearts of billions with that soothing voice. lol
Have you just forsaken your own religion! BLERSPHEMY! Lord Kenneth may be godly, but his powers could only be achieved through his father, Lord Gavin!
Gavin used his almighty aura to breath life into a fallen Kenneth. And thus, on the third day he was resurrected. Gavin breathed life not only into his son, but all of humanity! And you forsake him?!?
I weep for you, fallen follower. May you never feel the touch of the raggedly beard!
He's actually one of my ancestors.
The way you worded it it sounded implied. Yes I know sons plural. Typo, brain heard Son with S and autonomic function caused me to do Son's. Roosevelt? Because most Americans don't like the word Socialism being involved with the USA. So USA/Roosevelt is a good example of how Socialism effected the USA, a country that tries to take pride in not being Socialist. As an American it's a very good example of Hitler and Mussolini's effect on societies outside their own countries during the 1930s.
This may seem like a joke, but I would seriously vote for him if he ever went for presidency.
Happens to everyone. Makes you wish the forums had a delete button.
How is that possible? Both of his children died before they had children. And he didn't have siblings. But awesome, if you are. I'm half Greek, that's all I share with the the man.
Hello there
Wouldn't that be dangerous though? The guy is quite untrustworthy.