NationStates Jolt Archive

Can one mass-murderer be called worse than another due to intention or death-toll?

Yes. Hitler and Stalin are worse than that Russian bloke who killed 3 people today.

But is Hitler worse than Stalin or vice versa?

But is Hitler worse than Stalin or vice versa?

Stalin's worse than Hitler. At least if you were white and straight under Hitler you were treated well. Stalin punished all equally.

Stalin's worse than Hitler. At least if you were white and straight under Hitler you were treated well. Stalin punished all equally.

Equality for the people, Comrade.

I thought this thread was about something completely different.

Can one mass-murderer be called worse than another due to intention or death-toll?

Intention ? Certainly. If I were to kill 1000 people who due to the influence of a virus were turned into ravaging flsh eating zombie-like things with no known cure - I would probably be called a hero by many for instance.

If they were infected by another, more realistic yet still highly contagious and fatal disease, burning them and the rest of the village alive may raise a few eyebrows and lead to trials - but the universal dislike will be far smaller than the dislike people have of e.g. Hitler.

I think the whole 'rating/overrated' fascination the internet has is a waste. (which is not to say captioning cat pictures is an act of pure productivity...)

I don't really see any point in ordering things into 'top ten' lists or deciding which is worse etc. At a certain point someone or something becomes "fucking awesome" or "fucking horrible" and then stands on its own without any need to list it, give it a number, or determine if its rating is overdone. I think the thread title gets it right, it's dick measuring. Not into it.

Intention ? Certainly. If I were to kill 1000 people who due to the influence of a virus were turned into ravaging flsh eating zombie-like things with no known cure - I would probably be called a hero by many for instance.

Eh, you are talking about effect, not intention.

Hitler intended to save lives and create a paradise on earth.

Eh, you are talking about effect, not intention.

Ah. My intention would be rescuing the rest of humanity from these sick people.

Hitler intended to save lives and create a paradise on earth.

But his actions were not consistent with that claim. Nor was the basis for his reasoning correct - and he probably knew that.

Maybe consistency and honesty are determining factors here.

In addition, there is empathy. Millions of people being slaughtered in Africa tend to be considered "less important" by many westerners. Or at least get far less airtime.

Stalin's worse than Hitler. At least if you were white and straight under Hitler you were treated well. Stalin punished all equally.

... so an equal opportunity tyrant is worse than a racist tyrant?

Can one mass-murderer be called worse than another due to intention or death-toll?

I don't know if ducks can be measured. I'm not such a duck expert.

Sure! You just need a tape measure and someone to hold the duck.

I don't know if ducks can be measured. I'm not such a duck expert.

:tongue: Titles have to be censored.

I don't know if ducks can be measured. I'm not such a duck expert.

>.>

<.<

You STOLE MY JOKE, YOU BIG D*C*gets shot*

But is Hitler worse than Stalin or vice versa?

Depends on your ideology. ;)

The thread title was misleading. :(

:tongue: Titles have to be censored.

Why can't the leaders and president of this site stand ducks?

They don't do anything wrong, the ducks.

Were they molested in their youth by ducks?

A deck is fairly easy to measure. Thats no excuse for measuring and not swabbing though.

What can't the leaders and president of this site stand ducks?

They don't do anything wrong, the ducks.

Were they molested in their youth by ducks?

I think it was listed as a offensive name for doctors.

A deck is fairly easy to measure. Thats no excuse for measuring and not swabbing though.

But what of docks?

I think it was listed as a offensive name for doctors.

Nah, that would be "qu*ck".

But what of docks?

Irrelevant if you have no decks

Nah, that would be "qu*ck".

No, it was "d*ck"; it had something to do with b*lls.

No, it was "d*ck"; it had something to do with b*lls.

With bills?

No, it was "d*ck"; it had something to do with b*lls.

How do you pronounce '*' ?

Can d*cks be measured?
Well, yes. Ship capacity, crane capacity, coastline length, overall area, ground area, storage capacity... a dozen measurements at least.

No, it was "d*ck"; it had something to do with b*lls.

I actually shat my kacks when I read that. *high five*

MDH

How do you pronounce '*' ?

"!"

I actually shat my kacks when I read that. *high five*

MDH

You mean you "sh*t" them.

Why would you shoot your kacks anyways?

How do you pronounce '*' ?
It's like clapping one hand, only with the lip.

I actually shat my kacks when I read that. *high five*

MDH

You sound like that one police officer from 'Allo Allo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRsp5ubqJXw

How do you pronounce '*' ?

You sh*t your tongue through the *ss of your b*tch.

I actually shat my kacks when I read that. *high five*

MDH

I apologize for you lack of bowel control. I am sure a d*ck would help.

So many bad asterisks jokes, so little ammo. Who to kill first?

I didn't really shit myself. It was just on of the funniest moments of my entire day. Except for seeing a random guy dancing with a really big umbrella. That was a winner.

MDH

So many bad asterisks jokes, so little ammo. Who to kill first?

Me, since I helped to ruin my own thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

So many bad asterisks jokes, so little ammo. Who to kill first?

I'm not getting sh*t by you!

So, could the U.S. Government be considered as bad as Nazis? It was responsible for innumerable innocents deaths in WWII.

So, could the U.S. Government be considered as bad as Nazis? It was responsible for innumerable innocents deaths in WWII.

If they lost the war, the American generals would have faced Nürnberg.

History is written by the winners, my dear.

So, could the U.S. Government be considered as bad as Nazis? It was responsible for innumerable innocents deaths in WWII.

Innumerable? Nah, close to 2 million are the best estimates I've been able to find in my readings. Mostly Japanese of course.

Innumerable? Nah, close to 2 million are the best estimates I've been able to find in my readings. Mostly Japanese of course.

So then, was our (my and my fellow United Statesians') government "less bad", or equally reprehensible?

So then, was our (my and my fellow United Statesians') government "less bad", or equally reprehensible?

I'd say with the way we treated the Japanese, (until after the war at least) that would be equally reprehensible. However, I would say most of the blame should fall on LeMay for his decision to firebomb, a move that was opposed by many generals and Truman, since he is the big boss man.

With the Germans I think we tried a lot harder to hit actual military targets and it was the Brits with the night bombing that hit more indiscriminately.

So then, was our (my and my fellow United Statesians') government "less bad",

Of course you were on the good guys side.

I'd say with the way we treated the Japanese, (until after the war at least) that would be equally reprehensible. However, I would say most of the blame should fall on LeMay for his decision to firebomb, a move that was opposed by many generals and Truman, since he is the big boss man.

But Truman later approved of the atomic bomb.

With the Germans I think we tried a lot harder to hit actual military targets and it was the Brits with the night bombing that hit more indiscriminately.

Japanese tended to be more dehumanized in American propaganda.

Best case scenario would have been if Stalin and Hitler would have just had sex with each other then killed each other in shame / aganoy of gay lust.

Best case scenario would have been if Stalin and Hitler would have just had sex with each other then killed each other in shame / aganoy of gay lust.

You wanted them to f*ck each other in the *ss, and then both to get sh*t by each other?

Of course you were on the good guys side.

http://www.hdg.de/fileadmin/static/lemo/objekte/pict/Nachkriegsjahre_photoGrosseDrei/index.jpg

Of course you were on the good guys side.

And turned Western Europe (UK not included) and Japan into a pile of rubble in the process. Don't worry though you were on the good guy's side so its perfectly fine to trash the place.

But Truman later approved of the atomic bomb.



Japanese tended to be more dehumanized in American propaganda.

Yes, and he gets the weight of that, I was mostly referencing the firebombing which was a lot more damaging than the two bombs. The militarists weren't even that impressed by the bombs but luckily they enough to get Hirohito to culminate his forcing out of the militarists that he had started after the firebombings. I've never had a high opinion of Truman but I truly despise LeMay.

Yes, and he gets the weight of that, I was mostly referencing the firebombing which was a lot more damaging than the two bombs.

Yeah, I know. It is often neglected--the pilots having wear gas-masks to filter out the stench of burning civilians.

The militarists weren't even that impressed by the bombs but luckily they enough to get Hirohito to culminate his forcing out of the militarists that he had started after the firebombings. I've never had a high opinion of Truman but I truly despise LeMay.

I blame the our government for a lot of it; they let it happen, just as Hitler allowed the Holocaust.

I blame the our government for a lot of it; they let it happen, just as Hitler allowed the Holocaust.
You absolutely cannot equalize the Holocaust with the bombing of Japan. That's ridiculous in the extreme.

You absolutely cannot equalize the Holocaust with the bombing of Japan. That's ridiculous in the extreme.

I find carpet-bombing (or atom-bombing) a city crowded with civilians a horrible deed and a war crime: but that's not even remotely comparable with the scientifically-planned extermination of the "Untermenschen" the Nazis attempted.

You absolutely cannot equalize the Holocaust with the bombing of Japan. That's ridiculous in the extreme.

Well, that is what this thread is about. The Holocaust killed many more people, and was started by worse intentions, so you would say it could be considered much more terrible, right?

I find carpet-bombing (or atom-bombing) a city crowded with civilians a horrible deed and a war crime: but that's not even remotely comparable with the scientifically-planned extermination of the "Untermenschen" the Nazis attempted.
While the bombing of Japan was indeed awful and, if done today, probably a war crime (so many civilians lost their lives), I still think it was the right thing to do in order to get the Japanese to surrender. We did we we felt was needed to shorten the war, and it worked. I know you may not feel the same way, but there is also a direct relation for us.

For example, my grandpa told me that he was stationed on a boat outside of Japan and that they were getting mentally prepared to invade the Japanese mainland, and their commanding officer told them that most of them were expected to die in this fight . . . and then a few days later, we bombed Japan and then almost directly after, they surrendered. I mean, I know it was horrible, but in war, it really is "us vs. them", and the lives of "us" are always worth more than the lives of "them". It sounds horrible, but that's the reality of it.

While the bombing of Japan was indeed awful and, if done today, probably a war crime (so many civilians lost their lives), I still think it was the right thing to do in order to get the Japanese to surrender. We did we we felt was needed to shorten the war, and it worked. I know you may not feel the same way, but there is also a direct relation for us.

For example, my grandpa told me that he was stationed on a boat outside of Japan and that they were getting mentally prepared to invade the Japanese mainland, and their commanding officer told them that most of them were expected to die in this fight . . . and then a few days later, we bombed Japan and then almost directly after, they surrendered. I mean, I know it was horrible, but in war, it really is "us vs. them", and the lives of "us" are always worth more than the lives of "them". It sounds horrible, but that's the reality of it.

This is also true, 2 sides to every coin. It was in fact the firebombing that convinced Hirohito to start the political maneuvering necessary to force the militarists out. He was finally successful with the dropping of the Atomic bombs as he referenced in his speech. The "total destruction" aspect.

Boihaemum, in a strange way, there is a very strong possibility that I only exist (as I do) because we bombed Japan and my grandpa wasn't forced to partake in (what otherwise would have been) the invasion of the Japanese mainland, in which there would have been a very, very likely chance of him dying.

Crazy shit.

You absolutely cannot equalize the Holocaust with the bombing of Japan. That's ridiculous in the extreme.

Holocaust = ppl murdered for their origin

bombing of japan = ppl murdered for their origin,

murder is murder, unless ur victim's about 2 kill some1 else

Holocaust = ppl murdered for their origin

bombing of japan = ppl murdered for their origin,

murder is murder, unless ur victim's about 2 kill some1 else

you forget how the Jews and Homosexuals performed a sneak attack on a German base in German Terratories, pulling Germany into WWII.

you also forget that the Atomic bomb was dropped after millions of Japanese were rounded up and forced to live in the two concentration camps Hiroshima and Nagasaki where they were forced into slave labor.

Threadjacked by post 3. Nice.

Boihaemum, in a strange way, there is a very strong possibility that I only exist (as I do) because we bombed Japan and my grandpa wasn't forced to partake in (what otherwise would have been) the invasion of the Japanese mainland, in which there would have been a very, very likely chance of him dying.

Crazy shit.

I've got some cousins that are in the same boat, plus a few baby boomers that I know. 80% casualties expected for the 1 Marine (Guadacanal). Those number are mind boggling especially in the American experience, we hadn't seen anything like that since the Civil War and not near what would have been the scale.

I've got some cousins that are in the same boat, plus a few baby boomers that I know. 80% casualties expected for the 1 Marine (Guadacanal). Those number are mind boggling especially in the American experience, we hadn't seen anything like that since the Civil War and not near what would have been the scale.

I would have hated having to have been in that war.

Seeing that last few posts gives a new appreciation for the War in the Pacific.

Back on topic though, yes I think you can say some people were worse than others due to intentions and their death toll.

I thought this thread was about something completely different.

Yeah. I thought it was going to be a thread about how little sense it makes to weigh the duck you killed after you've filled it with lead shot.

Can d*cks be measured? Sure.

http://www.intersex.org.za/images/Phall-O-Meter%204.jpg

Some dude that gets laid off and shoots his wife and kids and kills himself is like the lowly scumbag of murderers. The Columbine kids they had some style. They were murderers that would make great characters for a video game. Killing for racial and political reasons is the ever so uncool psychotic dictatorship way of doing things. I like the killers that are sort of well just hunters of men. No torture no rape just good clean people hunting. I am not saying that people should go out and do this sort of thing but all I am saying is that Icould relate to them on a video game level, you know? i cant really relate to any other murderers at all. They seem either sadistic or just sad and trashy.

Assuming that Jack the Ripper killed his victims quickly and then exhibited his surgical skill in a way that flaunted the police's ability to catch him was cool. BTK was a sick freak.