It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Hitler that bad?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
no he closed off the entire country from the outside world. He imprisoned those who would start uprisings within russia, and he starved the innocent.



Well, okay then.

Don't forget that an uprising would stand more chance of breaking the border lines as well, so at the very least my statement has some value.

Which you seem to have a problem with.




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Hmmm, interesting post Lucid...

I had actually not heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

And thanks for willing to take some of the heat. I think anybody that knows me will know how used to it I am by now, but it's much appreciated, and more noble than I'm used to seeing here.

Here is another article I found...disturbing...which I thought you might want to read:



Cruel Torture Recorded in Tibet
The most cruel activities in the world, at one time, prevailed in Tibet, a Buddhist Holy Land, just half a century ago.

The Langzixia Prison, which lies not far from the Johkang Monastery in Lhasa, houses numerous instruments of torture in old Tibet. The three-story prison was built by the old Tibetan government.

Pictures on the walls of the prison, now a museum not open to tourists, record horrible scenes like the hands of a woman being cut off and complete skin of an adult man and a child being peeled off. Scaffold, fetters, handcuffs and many other unknown instruments are also on display.

It is reported that Tibetans had their nose, ears, tongue and even heart dug out in this prison. Some were buried after having their skin peeled and genitals cut off.

There is a "cave of scorpions" at Zongshan Castle. When a prisoner was thrown into the cave, countless scorpions as large as the palm of a person's hand would quickly sting the person to death.

Those who had been punished were ordinary Tibetans who could not pay their taxes or thieves, with the approval of the Dalai Lama.

According to the archives of the Tibetan government, the Dalai Lama, when chanting scriptures, had ordered presentation of the person's fresh heart, human fat, teenager's skin and stones used to kill people.

Even major lamaseries did something contradictory to the purpose of Buddhism. Lamas at the Zhebung Monastery burned to death a Tibetan woman who gave birth to a triplet. The Dalai Lama' s teacher had raped 400 women, sodomized 300 males and beat 2,300 slaves.

The practices were eventually abolished after the peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1951. the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959. He still preaches that Tibet under this rule was a Buddhist heaven where men were equal.


SRC: english.people.com.cn...

Thanks again.

And here's something more:

Tibet's rule was like Nazi Germany

[edit on 5/14/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
You wanted to know why Stalin was treated better than Hitler, and you've just proven to me you already know the answer.





[edit on 14-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
It would seem that I underestimated the value of my own statement.

Just like you did.




posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


Actually, that reply has been taken out of context. That was to someone else in regards to him not thinking Hitler would've surpassed Stalin or Mao Tse Tung's body count.

And I think you're assuming a bit too much here too. The thread's topic was 'Was Hitler that bad?' And my answer has been yes, overwhelmingly so. They are all monstrous tyrants who deserve nothing less than the fires of hell, but if I had to pick my 'Most Evil' award, IMO, it would be Hitler.

All of them are terrible memories, but if I had to pick.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


i guess so, but thats just stalin there are still plenty more which are for the most part are not even mentioned. pol pot before eddie izzard i had never heard of him and it seems kind of ridiculous i learn more from a comedian than i do from school.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


if i could change the title to avoid confusion i would. jeez since the start everyone has taken this thread out of context even myself at times



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
of course he was bad, sorry i'm posting such short replies i'm a newbie and trying to post enough to start u2u people.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnnylightning06
of course he was bad


but there were others just as bad if not worse in the sadistic nature of the genocide right?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Well, i'm afraid the fact of the matter is that Hitler is the *snip* of the 20th century.

Naturally, when you compare his rule to that of, for example; the Pharaohs, who used slave labour to construct massive monuments to their power, killing tens of thousands of slaves on each one - Most modern day dictators pale in significance.

If you want to be pedantic, of course.

[edit on 14-5-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
He also posted that video on the Dali Lama in response to my request for it, so redistribute some of your heat to me please


Also, the Dali Lama has said things that are most definitely against the tenets of Buddhism and not conducive to a state of a bodhisattva.


I was in no way defending the Dalai Lama in my remarks, only pointing out that when you asked for a link proving that the Dalai Lama was a mass murdering evil monster, bigbert1 chose Penn & Teller as the authorities for his opinion; and let's face it, when you are thinking about evil, genocidal tyrants, the DL does not spring instantly to mind, right?

I similarly, have no interest in attaining bodhisattva, nivana or any other state of grace but that provided for by God, through Jesus Christ, so that argument doesn't mean much to me, if it is intended to show that the DL is somehow evil because he doesn't abide by strict budhist edict; but then he is the Dalai Lama and is allowed some slack there, no?



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. If you think you are Equal to a wild animal go out and kill one with out a weapon! Use your bare hands to take the animal down and then you can be considered to be its equal. This kind of thinking is the very reason we find ourselves reapeating history we don't seem to learn anything. People love to make hitler out to be a monster, when have you ever heard anyone mention what happen to the Indians the Mayans or the Inkas when the Europeans cross the sea! Do you have any Idea what happend to those people? Again it was in our best interest to to stop hitler cause he was evil. It was also in our best interest to slaughter the Indains and all of the other true Americans so that we could take the land!


Shameless self importance. People kill other organisms with their "bare hands" minute by minute. I have done so several times and so have you.
I played no part in the Conquest or in any of the Allied actions in the European theatre, WWII.

New estimates on New World population prior to the arrival of the Spaniards is upwards of 100 million. The Aztecs weren't nice people. I had nothing to do with infecting Native Americans with diseases they had no immuno response for. The fact that some people think they're better than the other lifeforms that share our world seems problematic to me and very self-centered.

Where do you draw this arbitrary line between homo sapien sapien and other animals? Habilus, Erectus...? Tool use is widespread among non-humans. Are you so much better? And who is to say what was in the best interest of people in other times, places, and situations? Am I better off for the aggressive actions of my predecessors? Who is to say?

The original topic was why is Hitler so high-profile. My response was that he was essentially just extra creepy.

You have failed to demonstrate the absurdity of my stance. Be specific.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by lightseeker
 




when you asked for a link proving that the Dalai Lama was a mass murdering evil monster, bigbert1 chose Penn & Teller as the authorities for his opinion


EVERYONE!!! EVERYONE!!!

Lightseeker has done everyone here an extraordinary favor by showing us all how NOT to act here on ATS!!!

Take note of how Lightseeker decided to start attacking me instead of reading the posts, or clicking on any of the links.

Can everyone see that? This is a classic mistake made by many a noob (strange that Lightseeker has as many points as I do to be making such a rookie mistake though).

Don't follow in these footsteps, or you WILL end up making yourselves look foolish.

Thank you everyone for listening, God bless.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djerwulfe

Shameless self importance. People kill other organisms with their "bare hands" minute by minute. I have done so several times and so have you.
I played no part in the Conquest or in any of the Allied actions in the European theatre, WWII.



He said "Wild Animal", Not "Insects".

Although i do acknowledge that had humans not evolved so quickly, sooner or later another one of "God's Creatures" would have.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81

Originally posted by lightseeker
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Oh, right! Penn & Teller!! Gee, thanks for giving us such an educated, reasoned and well balanced overview of chinese-tibet relations and on that blood-thirsty barbarian, the Dalai Lama. Yeah, you really gotta keep an eye on those buddhist priest types. Give me a break!!


Hmmm, LightSeeker, huh?


Yeah, Lightseeker's the name, seeking light is my game!



Funny, because from what I've seen, you sure like to stay in the dark.


Oh yeah, real intelligent reply there, bigbert; if by staying in the dark you mean not believing everything that I hear, or that appears on the internet, then I plead gullty as charged. What's your excuse?


Ooooh, snap! Yeah, I went there.


It's o.k., It's about what I expected from you. When someone doesn't agree with you or calls your beliefs into question you resort to insults. Sad.



Do some friggin' research.
I am researching all the time;I just don't believe everything I read or hear, without researching it completely.



[edit on 5/14/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
To go back to the original post:


However so many have been since hitler yet we do nothing to stop them, we do nothing to educate our youths on stalins evils


Hitler could be stopped because of the situation he put himself in. However, he could very easily have managed to defeat Britain, and quite possibly the USSR as well. Consider, around the time he started Operation Barbarossa he had already squandered a lot in failing to take out Britain. If he had succeeded in that, the Allies (who now would consist of remaining colonial forces, and maybe the USA) would lack any foothold in Western Europe, and Stalin would have had all of Hitler's forces bearing down on him (since the Atlantic wall is fairly secure with no Britain). Then if Hitler had beaten the USSR they would have (eventually) dominance over land from Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. He would be almost totally unassailable., and free to do whatever barbarity he wants, and surpass what we know Stalin and Mao actually did.

Now why could Stalin not be got rid of? At the end of WW2 (European theater), both sides had taken many casualties, and it is estimated that a further million might be taken in the final conquest of Japan, were it not for the advent of nuclear weapons. If the Allies had wanted to get at Stalin then, they wouldn't have succeeded in that, due to being outnumbered. Russia had far too much strength for Britain and America to take on, and I dare say most of the soldiers were sick of war by then. A war against Russia would have been likely futile without resorting to nuclear warfare, which would serve no purpose other than murdering civilians, which apparently, you want to stop from being butchered by Stalin's minions.

Move on a few years, and you have the cold war, yes, lets make it hot and have a nice Nuclear bomber exchange. Not a good idea.

Then Mao. Well considering that both sides in the Cold war were fighting through proxies, eg

In the Korean War the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China aided the Communists in North Korea and China against the United Nations forces led by the United States, the Soviet Union did not enter the war directly, though it was allegedly reported that the Soviets had been sending over pilots to fly for the Communists in MiG 15 fighter jets. China however did enter the war directly and sent millions of its troops in 1950 preventing the U.N. coalition from defeating the communist government of the north.

In the Vietnam War the Soviet Union supplied North Vietnam and the Viet Minh with training, logistics and material but unlike the United States Armed Forces they fought the war through their proxies and did not enter the conflict directly.
source


it wouldn't be a good idea to try and get rid of Mao. Unless you're talking some impressive bit of espionage and assassination, you ain't getting to him without a war (which would likely follow an assassination attempt, whether failed or successful). Which would escalate quickly into a full fledged nuclear exchange as the USSR helps their friend out. Not good, bye bye world and possibly billions, to try and save millions.

Now we come to Hussein. well, if the forces of the West had any sense, we wouldn't be having this discussion since they'd have got rid of him in 1991.

Mugabe, no idea really. A bunker buster through his window would have been good, but consider that Africa likes having independence from the old Colonial powers, his neighbours probably wouldn't appreciate you doing that.

So it is possible that not getting rid of them might have resulted in less bloodshed. Not that I think it's right to stand by and let it happen, but the West doesn't have an infinite length arm with which to do things. even a quick assassination and regime change would be hard, you need to get rid of old supporters as well.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Extraordinary! I've scrolled down this conversation and read about 80% of the contributions. Unless I've missed it nobody has mentioned Pol Pot.

Why should he figure in this list of evil? Well unlike any of the others, he succeeded in having murdered more than one third of his own people. Nobody, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung or any of the others slaughtered such a large proportion of their own people.

Lest he be forgotten, kindly add Pol Pot to the Hall of Evil.


Ah ha! I was trying to remember this name. I hadn't read a thing about him, but someone was telling me about him a year or two ago. Thank you!!



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
but there were others just as bad if not worse in the sadistic nature of the genocide right?


There were others on a par - so what?

Doesn't excuse any of it, does it? Doesn't make any of them angelic. All it proves is that theres been some real evil bastards out there.

In fact, I really can't see the point of the discussion here, try as I might.

Was Hitler that bad? Yes he was.

Were other people as bad - yes.

Does that make Hitler anything less than a megalomanic aryan supremacist who led a country full on into war and oversaw some of the worst crimes against humanity in world history? No. It most certainly doesn't.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by lightseeker
 


You research all of the time, yet when I provide links and a short, interesting video that sums it up, you criticize me.

Here's something that DIDN'T come from Penn&Teller:



In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation---including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation of arms and legs--were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, runaway serfs, and other "criminals." Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."


This comes from another of the links I posted, but apparently you would rather attack me than take the time to read them.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightseeker
and let's face it, when you are thinking about evil, genocidal tyrants, the DL does not spring instantly to mind, right?


No he doesn't. That's why when he mentioned murder if struck my interest



I similarly, have no interest in attaining bodhisattva, nivana or any other state of grace but that provided for by God, through Jesus Christ, so that argument doesn't mean much to me,


Hey that's okay with me! I wasn't trying to debate that aspect. It is my contention though, and I frequently read both sides, the Christs' transcension and Buddhist enlightenment is ultimately one and the same. If their is one ultimate Reality, and one ultimate Creator, paths of transcension necessarily lead, even if different roads are taken, to the same destination. That's my humble opinion. You will note very similar tenets from Christ (Jesus specifically, not the Bible at large) as well as those of Buddhist masters as well. Love, humility, compassion, etc. Something to be pondered. I feel they have a connection to the same Truth, and it compels them to find it



if it is intended to show that the DL is somehow evil because he doesn't abide by strict budhist edict;


That wasn't my intention. I was replying in response to a few posters. Sorry I should have made that more clear. It seemed like people were attributing the expected humanitarian persona to the Dali Lama, because of his position in Buddhism, and thought talking about him in negative light was absurd. I was just trying to elucidate my point that he isn't the humanitarian that Buddhism expects of their Bodhisattva's. I would have to read more about his involvement in rape and murder to determine if mentioning him in this thread is OT or not...


but then he is the Dalai Lama and is allowed some slack there, no?


No



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join