Alexander the Great

[NYBuckeye]

I was watching a show on Alexander and the peope were talking about how truly great he was for conquering most of the known world.

I was wondering, if Hitler had suceeded in most of his plans and conquered all of Europe and possibly more; would people be describing him as a "Great" man 1000 years from now? hitler the great??

I dont know if Alexander killed innocent people or whatever so maybe that is the biggest difference but this just had me wondering. Why someone who tried to conquer the world over 2000 years ago is considered great while if someone tried that today they would be considered evil at best...

[bitonti]

alexander never advocated a policy of systematic genocide, so "hitler the great" is unlikely - maybe "hitler the terrible" if he won.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=NYBuckeye;2203493]I dont know if Alexander killed innocent people or whatever...[/QUOTE]

I do.

He did, in fact kill, innocent people.

Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.


Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.

Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".

So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.

Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.

[quote=PlumberKhan;2203569]I do.

He did, in fact kill, innocent people.

Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.


Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.

Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".

So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.

Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/quote]

rupaul-mania makes one crazed with terror sympathy too

why am i not surprised

[WestJet]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2203569]I do.

He did, in fact kill, innocent people.

Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.


Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.

Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".

So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.

Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between collateral damage and intentionally carrying out genocide....

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=flushingjet;2203744]rupaul-mania makes one crazed with terror sympathy too

why am i not surprised[/QUOTE]

Does your Bush-mania make you say such crazy things?

or is it the flourescent lighting?


Besides...don't contribute to my deranged train of thought. ;)

Alexander / Hiroshima / RuPaul / Terror sympathy? What drugs are we on?


I was going to say the Illuminati burned the Library of Alexandria. But now I don't know...

Perhaps it was an electrical fire. Or an overly decorated Christmas tree...

[quote=PlumberKhan;2203771]Does your Bush-mania make you say such crazy things?

or is it the flourescent lighting?


Besides...don't contribute to my deranged train of thought. ;)

Alexander / Hiroshima / RuPaul / Terror sympathy? What drugs are we on?


I was going to say the Illuminati burned the Library of Alexandria. But now I don't know...

Perhaps it was an electrical fire. Or an overly decorated Christmas tree...[/quote]

nations start or finish wars at their own peril, always

but to defend imperial japan-pure revisionist history

japan, an ostensibly civilized nation fought a most uncivilized war

on 12/7/41 alone they flew planes 1,000 miles+ away from their capital to kill
2400 servicemen (1/2 on the USS Arizona), 70 civilians
and destroy military capability, among the losses 2 battleships @200 planes

if we had it coming for whatever demented reason you conjure up,
they had it coming back to them in spades, whether you date it back
to their conquest of manchuria, japan or singapore/pearl harbor/phillippines

100,000 US soldiers, billions in blood & treasure, other losses (US civilians and POWs tortured/killed elsewhere in the pacific)

rupaul would call it "blowback"

thats the problem with public / home schools

you always get the revised edition

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=flushingjet;2203828]nations start or finish wars at their own peril, always

but to defend imperial japan-pure revisionist history[/QUOTE]

I wasn't defending Japan.

Just using hyperbole to show innocent people die in every war.

Whether it be Alexanders conquest of the Hellenic world, Mr. Genghis ownage of most of the known world or the US finality of concluding the Pacific theater of the Second World War.

No matter how moral the war...people with little or nothing to do with hostilities at hand always seem to manage to find themselves in the path of a hail of lead or under the area of falling bombs.

History proves (as in the case of Japan) that their lives weigh in the balance of a complex moral math problem...deciding whether or not their lives outweigh how many can be lost if nothing is done. The atomic bombs over Japan sure did put the brakes on any desire for japan to continue fighting a clearly superior enemy.

But innocent people on their side did die nonetheless. But the blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of THEIR leaders...not ours.

[quantum]

Bad analogy Khan - both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers crucial to the Japanese war effort.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=quantum;2209858]Bad analogy Khan - both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers crucial to the Japanese war effort.[/QUOTE]



A dead baby is a dead baby...no matter how you kill it.

The Japanese leaders at the time have their blood on their hands. I said that. But children still died...no matter how it is attempted to be justified.

God does not like dead children.

Period.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2209896]A dead baby is a dead baby...no matter how you kill it.

The Japanese leaders at the time have their blood on their hands. I said that. But children still died...no matter how it is attempted to be justified.

God does not like dead children.

Period.[/QUOTE]

Wow Plumber, you sure have become a real gurn'in wuss of late man.

So "God" doesn't like Dead Babies, eh? Well, then perhaps God should get off his lazy butt and do something about it eh?

I won't hold my breath.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2203569]I do.

He did, in fact kill, innocent people.

Collateral damage is unavoidable in any war.


Now...if you change the definition of "innocent"...then all bets are off.

Take Hiroshima for example. Most people would assume that the majority of the old people, women, children and babies living in that city were "innocent". They would indeed be very wrong. Had an invasion of Japan ensued, those old people, women, children and babies would of fought the invading army landing on their shores. That would then change them from "innocent" to "enemy combatants".

So, even though the old people, women, children and babies in Hiroshima were not expecting an attack...the bomb was dropped from a plane CLEARLY marked with military insignia. That also makes it OK.

Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/QUOTE]


In 'fog of war' Robert McNamara says if Japan had won the war He and Curtis Lemay would have been war criminals for their part in the fire bombing of Japan.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Warfish;2209922]So "God" doesn't like Dead Babies, eh? Well, then perhaps God should get off his lazy butt and do something about it eh?

I won't hold my breath.[/QUOTE]

Me neither, Warfish, me neither.


If there is a god....if.....he doesn't bless anything on this planet. He looks at what we do to each other and gets sick to his stomach.

Monkeys killing monkeys killing monkeys over pieces of the ground.

Besides...the thread starter asked if Alexander killed innocent people. Good question:
[QUOTE=Plumber]Simply put, innocent people are usually only killed by people who lose wars...not win them.[/QUOTE]

[Soberphobia]

There are several red herrings on this thread.

The move to what is now called 'degenerate war' really only became prevalent in the modern age - a degenerate war was one where civilians were deliberately targetted.

In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare. There have been instances, like the Mongols sacking Kiev and killing everyone in that city they could lay their hands on, but most bloodshed was carried out on the battlefield and involved enemy combatants. Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils.

With the move towards modern 'nation-states', war became what Clauswitz called, 'total'. It was a fight between nations just as much as it was a fight between armies. For example, because Dresden was the centre of much munition production for the Germans in WW2, it became a 'legitimate' target of the Allies. As we all know this led to the Dresden Firestorm that destroyed the city and its inhabitants. 'Collateral damage' is really a modern phenomenon. If you think about what won WW2 on the Western Front and in the Pacific it was just as much about the massive American productive ability as it was anything else - civilians and civilian targets became 'legitimate' because wars were won in the factories just as much as they were won with bravery and bullets on the battlefield.

I am not claiming that these actions, like Dresden or Hiroshima, were unnecessary. Far from it - it is not my place here to adjudicate on such matters, but what I am saying is that in modern times attacks on civilian infrastructure is an increasing factor compared to ancient times. In fact in some modern wars it is really only the civilians affected; the attacks by Al Qaida spring immediately to mind.

[Jetfan_Johnny]

Another major difference that must be considered when comparing different wars from different times is the way in which they were fought and the technology used to fight the wars.

[Soberphobia]

[QUOTE=Jetfan_Johnny;2211025]Another major difference that must be considered when comparing different wars from different times is the way in which they were fought and the technology used to fight the wars.[/QUOTE]

Yep, better military technology has rapidly progressed the move towards 'degenerate war'.

[quote=Black Death;2210993]There are several red herrings on this thread.

The move to what is now called 'degenerate war' really only became prevalent in the modern age - a degenerate war was one where civilians were deliberately targetted.

In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare. There have been instances, like the Mongols sacking Kiev and killing everyone in that city they could lay their hands on, but most bloodshed was carried out on the battlefield and involved enemy combatants. Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils.

With the move towards modern 'nation-states', war became what Clauswitz called, 'total'. It was a fight between nations just as much as it was a fight between armies. For example, because Dresden was the centre of much munition production for the Germans in WW2, it became a 'legitimate' target of the Allies. As we all know this led to the Dresden Firestorm that destroyed the city and its inhabitants. 'Collateral damage' is really a modern phenomenon. If you think about what won WW2 on the Western Front and in the Pacific it was just as much about the massive American productive ability as it was anything else - civilians and civilian targets became 'legitimate' because wars were won in the factories just as much as they were won with bravery and bullets on the battlefield.

I am not claiming that these actions, like Dresden or Hiroshima, were unnecessary. Far from it - it is not my place here to adjudicate on such matters, but what I am saying is that in modern times attacks on civilian infrastructure is an increasing factor compared to ancient times. In fact in some modern wars it is really only the civilians affected; the attacks by Al Qaida spring immediately to mind.[/quote]

as usual, a steaming load of degenerate sh!t
thats why the fly hovers around it

civilians were raped tortured murdered and enslaved
by enemy conquerors in all eras

nothing new there

crack open a book on the Roman empire sometime

only the lib notion of US committing war crimes
by giving enemies 2 hots and a cot is new

the idea that al qaeda /terrorists only affects civilians
(as if thats any excuse for their actions)
is fantasy/fallacy

the murderous attack by Hezbollah on US Marines in 1983,
later attacks against US Military in Khobar Towers and the
USS Cole spring immediately to mind

[doggin94it]

[quote=Black Death;2210993]There are several red herrings on this thread.

The move to what is now called 'degenerate war' really only became prevalent in the modern age - a degenerate war was one where civilians were deliberately targetted.

In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare - it certainly did happen, but it was rare. There have been instances, like the Mongols sacking Kiev and killing everyone in that city they could lay their hands on, but most bloodshed was carried out on the battlefield and involved enemy combatants. Everyone else stayed in the village, wallowed in mud and picked at their pus-filled boils.

With the move towards modern 'nation-states', war became what Clauswitz called, 'total'. It was a fight between nations just as much as it was a fight between armies. For example, because Dresden was the centre of much munition production for the Germans in WW2, it became a 'legitimate' target of the Allies. As we all know this led to the Dresden Firestorm that destroyed the city and its inhabitants.[B] 'Collateral damage' is really a modern phenomenon.[/B] If you think about what won WW2 on the Western Front and in the Pacific it was just as much about the massive American productive ability as it was anything else - civilians and civilian targets became 'legitimate' because wars were won in the factories just as much as they were won with bravery and bullets on the battlefield.

I am not claiming that these actions, like Dresden or Hiroshima, were unnecessary. Far from it - it is not my place here to adjudicate on such matters, but what I am saying is that in modern times attacks on civilian infrastructure is an increasing factor compared to ancient times. In fact in some modern wars it is really only the civilians affected; the attacks by Al Qaida spring immediately to mind.[/quote]

Collateral damage is a modern phenomenon mainly because the advent of weapons that can harm more than one individual at a time is a modern phenomenon, as are ranged weapons of any real distance. It's hard to have much collateral damage swinging a sword or morningstar in the melee

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Black Death;2210993]a degenerate war was one where civilians were deliberately targetted.

In ancient wars the killing of civilians was rare [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry BD, but that is a horribly inaccurate crock of Poo my friend. Throughout History Civilians paid the price for War, both in terms of being killed if in/near a Warzone, and by being enslaved, worked to death, tortured, pillaged, etc. if their little slice of ground was lost to an enemy.

Go tell all the Scots slaughtered by the English over the centuries that "Civilians being killed" is a modern invention. I think, if those long dead could talk, they'd tell you a vastly different story.

Think the Romans didn't kill Civies? Really BD, get real.

[Soberphobia]

[QUOTE=flushingjet;2211195]as usual, a steaming load of degenerate sh!t
thats why the fly hovers around it

civilians were raped tortured murdered and enslaved
by enemy conquerors in all eras

nothing new there

crack open a book on the Roman empire sometime

only the lib notion of US committing war crimes
by giving enemies 2 hots and a cot is new

the idea that al qaeda /terrorists only affects civilians
(as if thats any excuse for their actions)
is fantasy/fallacy

the murderous attack by Hezbollah on US Marines in 1983,
later attacks against US Military in Khobar Towers and the
USS Cole spring immediately to mind[/QUOTE]

As usual, you haven't got an effing clue as to what you are dribbling on about.

I've actually studied this topic reasonably extensively, so I do know what I'm talking about. Battles in ancient times were carried out on battlefields that were largely removed from where civilians were. They were between armies and not armies deliberately targetting civilians.

But don't take it from me, take it from the world's leading expert on the topic, Professor Martin Shaw from the University of Sussex in the UK. In particular look at this article written by Shaw: [URL="http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/204shaw.htm"]link[/URL]

Shaw's website is here: [URL="http://www.martinshaw.org/"]link[/URL]

Of course, though, you being a plumber and all, you would know better than a university Professor.

Somehow, yet again, you bring the word 'lib' into the argument despite the fact I'm not located in the USA and am not a 'lib' at all.

I have given you various monikers in previous posts; for this thread I'll go back to calling you ****fa, because its damn clear you have **** Fa Brains.