DC Mongolian Community pushes for Genghis Kahn statue

[LordShiva]

No I didn't.

[snoopy369]

Northern China most certainly did resist him. I don't have the book at hand for names, but IIRC the Jin were the major power at the time, and they responded very poorly to his envoys, and beheaded or castrated several. He chose at the time not to invade, as he had more serious concerns in the west to deal with. Ultimately he didn't invade China at all, but Kublai instead ended up invading China; and he had some of his own problems (like a poor home situation where he for a time lost the position of Khan in his tribe).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva
No I didn't.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought Wiki into this

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369


FDR murdered millions. Churchill murdered millions. Washington murdered as many as the British tossed at him. Lincoln murdered half a million of his own people.

How are they any different? Yet we seem to have statues of them everywhere...

You do know that in English "murdered" and "killed" have different meanings?

If you are pacifist, and consider all killings during war morally equivalent, fine, just say so and be done with it.

[snoopy369]

LOTM, that's my point, in fact. People seem to be using "Murdered" when "Killed" is a much more appropriate word. If Genghis Khan is a murderer, then so are the above american and british heroes.

[Barnabas]

The inquisition in Spain killed only around 4000 people in 4 centuries, you cant really compare that to Genghis Khan

[snoopy369]

It was just as bad or worse in spirit, regardless of its effectiveness.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
LOTM, that's my point, in fact. People seem to be using "Murdered" when "Killed" is a much more appropriate word. If Genghis Khan is a murderer, then so are the above american and british heroes.

Look, I know that massacring everyone in a city that resisted was standard practice at the time. GK just did it on a generally larger scale. But comparing that to Washington is pretty silly. What city populations did Washington have massacred? Hell, when the patriots reoccupied Philadelphia, they treated the loyalists there with kid gloves.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The inquisition in Spain killed only around 4000 people in 4 centuries, you cant really compare that to Genghis Khan

does that include deaths from privation among the expelled? According to Loeb, 20,000 died on the journey, including drownings, etc.

[snoopy369]

Perhaps Washington wasn't a good example, but certainly Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Churchill massacred civilian populations on just as large of a scale.

[OzzyKP]

FDR & Churchill did murder millions as they bombed civilians. I don't think we should honor such actions, however it should be noted that they weren't in the war in an effort to conquer territory, but were defending themselves and their allies from being conquered by others. Does it justify Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima? Not necessarily. But it isn't at all the same situation as Genghis Khan.

For Washington & Lincoln however most the fighting was against armies, and thus couldn't be put in the same category at all.


edit: I type slow, heh

[Barnabas]

The inquisition and the expulsion of the jews are not the same thing.

I dont know how many died out of the 40.000 to 100.000 jews who were expelled from Spain (or the moors one century later)

[snoopy369]

I argue that it is exactly the same situation. Genghis Khan was conquering people most of whom had attacked or threatened him first. Churchill and Roosevelt conquered Germany and Japan, don't kid yourself otherwise. Germany has only in the last few decades beginning to assert its independence from the US/English international agenda, and Japan is still largely a US ally.

Lincoln's forces massacred and burned Atlanta. They didn't even bother plundering it first ...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Perhaps Washington wasn't a good example, but certainly Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Churchill massacred civilian populations on just as large of a scale.

Tell me where Lincoln had civilians killed?


Roosevelt and Churchill were implicated in strategic bombing. That bombing was done against cities where war production took place. Whether that justified the bombing or not is another question - but I see no evidence that they ever had deliberated targeted civilians. There IS a famous memo by Harris about "dehousing". But we're not talking about a memorial to Harris, are we?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


does that include deaths from privation among the expelled? According to Loeb, 20,000 died on the journey, including drownings, etc.

Ok, 20,000 vs. 60 million. Hmmm....

And snoopy369's comment is absolutely ridiculous:

It was just as bad or worse in spirit, regardless of its effectiveness.