The debate "Good men don't travel halfway across the globe to kill peasants villagers and strangers" was started by
February 2, 2017, 9:22 am.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Najam1 posted 5 arguments, shehab posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Najam1, PoliticsAsUsual, thereal, PsychDave, jazzyjay, K1GOL, Christian, carrieunderwood007, slipknot, smv2005, shehab, jgwin10, navi_0000, CoreyO, human, redstar and 7 visitors agree.
Stidlet, Pugsly and 2 visitors disagree.
no, he murdered women and children closer to home. what a hero.
Muhammad didn't travel across the globe to murder anyone.
he would just have denied saying it and called you a liar.
That's where I was headed,but I wanted to see if he would agree first.
so when Mohammad commited mass murder against the Jewish tribes of Medina that made him stained with murderous repute?
So if someone committed atrocities while conquering, they are stained and not great?
A famous or infamous mass murderer is notorious. Fame doesn't equal great when the fame is stained with murderous repute.
Alexander massacred the inhabitants of Massaga and Ora in India (modern Pakistan) after taking them because they had refused to surrender. he also leveled every building in these cities.
I'll stop giving examples now. but as you can see, being Great usually involves being a mass murderer.
and as for Alexander, like all conquerors used mass murder and terror as a tool.
after taking the city of Thebes he had the survivors of the city's population sold into slavery.
the city of Persepolis, he killed all the men and sold the women into slavery.
there are numerous stories of him committing mass murder. but this was the way wars were conducted at the time. you would be hard pressed to find a successful conqueror who did not do things like this.
You're only partially correct nemiroff. the descendents of his victims see Ghenghis as a monster. So in European history books yes. To the Mongolians he is a hero even today.
and there has been alot of revisionism in history of the Mongols in the last decade or two. historians are alot kinder to him these days and many of them like to focus on the positive things he did, opening the silk road etc.
You know he's been dead for a long, long time, right?
If Ghen Khan traveled across the planet for the purpose of killing innocent civilians,then he is guilty.
The great court date hasn't arrived yet.
not always. ghenghis khan won and he is still seen as a monster... did Alexander mass murder civilians?
most nations celebrate men who do this. if you do this and fail you are a monster. if you do this and win you are a Great man.
look at Alexander the great. he killed people across the known world and he has been revered for over 1000 years.
a lot of people did that through the history and they were complimented very and they did that as a result of greed as a normal humans we don't accept this nor the the healthy thought won't
That sounds like a sign of mental illness.
A whole lot of people have died since the first time I heard the chorus to love boat. Everytime someone dies attempting to accomplish something stupid like killing a person on another continent that they never met or know nothing about, I hear the song.
What is your unhealthy obsession with the love boat and why do you think the gold standard is not having killed anyone or themselves?
lots of them died on such a fool hardy quest. They chose to ride a different kind of ship. All those of the Love Boat managed to survive from the time I was a little child.
I'm curious who you think does do this.