Tibet

Killing someone in a war (e.g. by majorwoody's artillerist) cannot be considered evil by default, because war is a lawful practise and because often one is only following orders... Molesting a child however, is unlawful and done on ones own accord, and that is evil... One has to be at least partially responsible for the death caused to be labelled evil, and Chairman Mao is more than just partially responsible. If he can't be considered evil then i don't know who can be

 

Young Kaiser...wow i didn't know i was that young.Just how old are you Major Woody?

Anyway,i doubt anyone is really paying much notice to how you are distorting my words .Any other words that come out of my hands will undoubtedly be twisted and stretched way beyond my wildest imagination.

Do the moderators tolerate this blatant abuse of a man's words?

 

Not everyone is a soldier not every country there is a war.

Refering to "little Kasier" not the pink sunglases. I have more respect for members past or present of armed forces to chalenge their masculanity.

T

Makes me feal silly I didnt remember thename of the organisation that guy was representing on the Colbert Report, that help people on death row and it I think it was over 25% had been cleared because of DNA evidence. If such a large number exhists just how many have been executed wrongly?

I don't have a bloody clue thats why I was asking you.

 

kaiser,iirc you stated you were a university student or serving in the singapore military {part time ?) ...i would guess you are early to mid twentys?....that to me , is young .....me ,greig and merlin are old sweats ....roel ,ricky and blaster seem too wise to be their age ...but mabey im just thinkin of me at that age....anyway ,i dont mean to offend you in anyway ...as to twisting your words ,please ...show me were where you think i have done this...rose colored glasses just means seeing things in perhaps a more posetive light then bears scrutiny...ie a mother who can see no wrongdoing in her plainly spoiled ,rotten ,out of control child ...

 

Part time soldiers?No i serve fulltime .

As to showing you where you have twisted my words.Nah i do't bother myself with these.Men of intellect and a rather good understanding of English would see where i am getting at.

Majorwoody,your american right?

 

your right ,im american ...and i am right you are mid 20s in age ,yes?
...kaiser you and gunter have the right to admire chairman mao..i think its misplaced is all ....if you guys want to pretend that the word evil has no meaning i guess you can do that too...kinda silly though ,is it not?

kaiser ,i have read my posts again ,looking for this twisting of words

.if you accuse me this ..it seems to me only fair that if you want to accuse me of something ,you should point to an example ...and also ..im curious what it was stalin did in his personal life that made him evil , while mao remains unblemished in your eyes..

 

I don't think majorwoody implied anything about anyone, beyond perhaps humorous punt which we've all been guilty of in this topic (and yes i do have a rather good understanding of the english language )

Perhaps we should all take a deep breath and put on a CD with whooshing ocean sounds, and go to our happy place.

My personal belief is that Mao was a mass murderer responsible for the deaths of millions... However can it honestly be said that had he not been in power more would not have died? The question is whether an unstable war-torn and poverty-stricken China is better than a powerful, stable, genocidal one. I don't know whether you can industrialise a such a huge, basically mediaeval country like 1930's China without killing millions because I've never seen it... Ironically Stalins murderous industrialisation and collectivisation was the only thing that saved him and Eastern Europe from being militarily steamrolled in WW2, perhaps the same thing can be said for China? I don't know... EVen if so, does this excuse Mao from criminal condemnation? hell no... It is equally likely that less would have died had he not been in power (same goes for Stalin, Hitler etc) unfortunatly we do not have the benifit of having a professional crystal ball reading gypsy on the forum, so it is impossible to discern whether things would have gone better or worse had Mao not been chairman

 

If you want me to refute something you must first provide something to be refuted. I can answer your last question though: Insofar as evidence goes the answer is none.

 

Allow me to give you another example.

If the French resistence is considered heros by the Allies because they kill German soldiers how come when the German resistance kills 1 collaborater with the enemy they are executed after the war(at least a couple of them not all). How could this be justified?

Why not? He was a great military leader who studied and used Sun Tzu's Art of War in a preficient military manner.

Kaiser never made a comment about pretending the word evil has no meaning, and neither did I. I was merely making a point. How can you judge something or someone to be evil without any criteria to judge or meet for it to be "evil". You can call anything evil but there is nothign you judge it by is that not what you have shown, as you could not present your definition, nor criteria for something or someone to be evil.

And Criteria is not necesarrialy correct or make sense; a prime example is the Canadian Mental Health Association as they have demonstarted it in the past 50 years. Could get into it but gonna try to stay on topic.

What do you mean by this? Are you trying to say that just because I see Chairman Mao in a different view than you means it is wrong?

 

Are you speaking hypothetically or do you have some specific factual situation in mind? I'm not familiar with what you are referring to however I can easily imagine that there could be a significant difference between the two situations. Soldiers are always legitimate targets in a war so the French Resistance is not guilty of a crime for attacking German soldiers.

In the other case it could depend. What German resistance are you referring to? Where did this occur? You say a collaborator however a collaborator can mean anyone who deals with the enemy. Collaborators are not per se legitimate targets.

 

Okey I see your point. I believe they were called Werewolves it was the killing of a mayor of a captured town. One of the first towns to fall if I remember. They were going to take him back to the heartland but they thought he was gonna get help so they shot him.

But wouldn't that also make American soldiers legitmate targets?

 

enemy soldiers are alway legit . targets in time of war ,the french undergroung were not uniformed soldiers nor were the partisans of eastern europe ..they were usually shot out of hand by heer troops ...or hanged in town...werewolf underground were prolly held in same low regard by us troops

 

ordinary combat troops while they kill enemy troos are not evil ..iif they intentionaly shoot civileans are comiting great evil...imo.

 

Like I said what is the criteria for something to be evil?

 

Only if you are not following the Geneva Conventions. You should know this, you understandme, don't you.

 

Then maybe you should read carefully.But since you mentioned your as old as Grieg,then perhaps i should pay respect to my elders and point out the more obvious bits which you have not seen.

But first,with regards to the post above, since when have i mentioned that i admire Chairman Mao?Despite my fervent searching for those very words of admiration,i'm afraid i can't find it.Perhaps a native speaker of English such as yourself should point out for me where is it?

And i have never said evil has no meaning to me.But i have never pressed for a definition from you either.It was Gunter.Again your sweeping statement somehow catches me offguard.But never mind.Mao was not unblemished in my eyes either.Again,you are putting words in my mouth.(This is called distorting my views if you don't catch on.... )
Mao had his fair share of mistakes.He was holding on to power and some of his policies like the great leap forward were failures that causes deaths.But left alone on his own,did he find time to rape,kill and destroy?I don't think there is any record of that.If his intentions were to strengthen the country,where is the evil in it?The most i can say is that yea,he must be made responsible for the killing of so many lives,but is he evil based on the consequences of actions he thought was good for the country?The difference between him and Stalin was that Stalin made the kulaks starved,but Mao tried to feed the people(but failed miserably).From here onwards,since your undoubtedly older and more experienced in life than me,you should be able to deduce who was the depraved and sadist here.
And again,find me records where there were peasant revolts or even violent peasant opposition to Mao during his time?

Oh dear!Have i pointed it out?I think i have forgotten.Can you show me where it is?Anyway, would Americans not want to take back Texas if Texas was being held by separatists?But then again,Texas originally was Mexican IIRC.Can Grieg verify this?

I did say that many in Taiwan wants to return back to China(as in let Taiwan be part of China again and not swim back to China as Majorwoody said).And if one bothers to even read the news on Taiwan,many would agree with me.But alas!Majorwoody disagrees.So can you point out to me some source where a majority doesn't want to amalgamate back with China?

The world's greatest killer? Perhaps i don't read as much.But is there a book,or even a book with an authoritative expert that condemns or even call Mao a great killer?

Again,from where do you find this general state of mood among Taiwanese?

Major Woody, from the start you have not been telling me besides going on harping on how many people were killed because of the fault of a plan that was intended for good and for that he is evil.And i have time and time again told you that he was at fault but not necessarily evil.

I even asked you should Nobel be branded evil because his invention that was intended for good had evil consequences such as making it easier for people to kill each other?

Should a drunken man that knocked down somebody be called evil?The driver's surely at fault.But is he evil?Did he intentionally knock down someone?

Until you have answered these questions then can i even begin to have arguments that would bear fruit unlike the reasons which you gave me which are in fact mostly of your own opinions and have little factual grounding.You don't enter a debate with a blank piece of paper(well i did,once).

 

no gryle ..i dont understand you at all...gunter,pretty much all cultures consider murder ,rape ,robbery and the seduction of children to be wrong and evil...

himmler was evil ,rommel was not....stalin was evil ,marshal zhukov was not...pol pot was evil ,presdent diem was not...killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not evil, killing innocent civillians is not evil if it is done accidently ie a bomb misses the target by 400 yards,,,putting people on rail cars to aushwitcz is evil ..... this all seems fairly self evident to me...

 

And your point my good sir?

 

I believe it was if I recall my American History class correctly.

I never remember robbery being called evil not evan on CNN. Also as I have asked for several times what is the basis for something/someone being evil? If there is none than it means didly squat.

 

Sorry but nobody knows who the original inhabitants were. It was long before recorded history so were are left with archeology to try and determine who was first. Good luck with that task not to mention tracing down their descendants.