Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, since most of human nature tends to side with the forces of good over evil, Satanism is probably very much a fringe religion with very few actual participants.... so no, they don't have the numbers or the power to do much of anything as dramatic as genocide.
Truthfully... All genocides are not of God, they are of man. Even the ones done in God's name. Man is his own worst enemy.
Done under gods direction.
Kill all who do not flee before you even the women and children and animals.
The story of Jericho.
I know you guys want to pretend the Lord decided to wipe out these sweet, sweet people that never did anything wrong. When the Hebrews left Egypt, the Lord used these "slaves" to defeat some very, very proud and strong people. The Lord tells the Hebrews "why" these peoples are to be killed where they are (there is no indication that the Lord sent Hebrews all over the earth to "dispatch" any that survived, unlike some other "faiths"), and it did not have to do with gaining the land. That was easy for the Lord, He could have done that with famines or moving the elements. They were to be destroyed because they "sinned" against the Lord, and against man. They practiced human sacrifices in places that were special to the Lord. They disrespected (sound familiar) the Alph and the Omega, there time for improvement had ended.
The crusades were in defense of the slaughter of Christians throughout the "known" world by muslim hordes.
The inquisition "killed" approximately 5000 people in over 400 years (not nearly as many as we have all been led to believe).
Now, I will ask you the same question that I asked another liberal (who wouldn't answer the question): would you rather live in a predominantly Christian country or a predominantly muslim country?
way to dodge!The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god.
Stalin didn't place himself in the position of god, he placed the state in the position of god.
Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort.
Utter bullshit.
The easing of the restrictions on religious practice began long before the war. Stalin eased some of the attacks on religion to consolidate his efforts against the Menshiviks. The oppression Stalin had been engaged in was being used by Trotsky's followers to create dissension to Stalin and the Bolsheviks. Stalin SLIGHTLY eased the oppression only to counter this.
With the Communist party dictating content of services and teachings.
Such a deal the Atheists gave the Christians.
Stalin was an atheist to the very core, and proudly proclaimed it. Stalin was also a man who loved power and knew how to gain and keep it.
He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution....
And?
also you have no proof that Stalin's so called atheism was in any way responsible for his actions....
on the other hand christians have always been proud to kill in the name of god!
Stalin was a Marxist, an Atheist, and the most prolific mass murderer in history. Despite your flaccid attempt to rewrite history, this remains fact.
Atheism is the most murderous religious system in all of history - this is a matter of fact.
Actually, Satanism is a very interesting religion, and it has little to do with your concepts of evil.
The use of Satan is a symbol for Promethean rebelliousness.
I'm not sure there is a single recorded instance in history of a satanist actually killing anyone.
Actually, I know that "Satanism" is not really a religion, but more of a mockery of Christianity started by a group of Atheists, led by Anton LaVey. They perform rituals in opposition to Christian rites. It's very much a "thumbing their noses" kind of thing.
Not entirely, there is actually a theistic satanism and an atheistic one.
way to dodge!The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god.
Stalin didn't place himself in the position of god, he placed the state in the position of god.
Utter bullshit.
The easing of the restrictions on religious practice began long before the war. Stalin eased some of the attacks on religion to consolidate his efforts against the Menshiviks. The oppression Stalin had been engaged in was being used by Trotsky's followers to create dissension to Stalin and the Bolsheviks. Stalin SLIGHTLY eased the oppression only to counter this.
With the Communist party dictating content of services and teachings.
Such a deal the Atheists gave the Christians.
Stalin was an atheist to the very core, and proudly proclaimed it. Stalin was also a man who loved power and knew how to gain and keep it.
And?
also you have no proof that Stalin's so called atheism was in any way responsible for his actions....
on the other hand christians have always been proud to kill in the name of god!
Stalin was a Marxist, an Atheist, and the most prolific mass murderer in history. Despite your flaccid attempt to rewrite history, this remains fact.
Atheism is the most murderous religious system in all of history - this is a matter of fact.
btw stalin's not even in the top three:
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
one more strike and you're out!
Way to dodge!
btw stalin's not even in the top three:
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
one more strike and you're out!
That's worth a thanks and a rep point!
Way to dodge!
Dodge?
You're trying to rewrite history to cover for the crimes of Atheism against humanity.
btw stalin's not even in the top three:
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
More lies from daws...
{With this understood, the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.
Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1. }
MURDER BY COMMUNISM
Oh, and before you start, dumbass, the Hawaii democide report is regarded as THE authoritative source on the subject. The figures you supplied were those you just made up, of course.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
If you have no argument, then nonsequitur might do the trick.
one more strike and you're out!
I'm out of your league, that's for sure.
You know daws, you think that because most of the other posters here don't call you on your bullshit, that you're getting away with it. In fact, you're not.
I laugh because you're so desperate to make everybody think you're the smartest kid in class.
You lie, you get caught, you laugh.
Zero integrity, guess that's an "atheist thing?"
The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.can you rationalize any harder...
Hey, if reality doesn't suit you, just lie.
Josef Stalin was no more an Atheist than Idi Amin was an African.
So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution....
also you have no proof that Stalin's so called atheism was in any way responsible for his actions....
on the other hand christians have always been proud to kill in the name of god!
Done under gods direction.
Kill all who do not flee before you even the women and children and animals.
The story of Jericho.
I know you guys want to pretend the Lord decided to wipe out these sweet, sweet people that never did anything wrong. When the Hebrews left Egypt, the Lord used these "slaves" to defeat some very, very proud and strong people. The Lord tells the Hebrews "why" these peoples are to be killed where they are (there is no indication that the Lord sent Hebrews all over the earth to "dispatch" any that survived, unlike some other "faiths"), and it did not have to do with gaining the land. That was easy for the Lord, He could have done that with famines or moving the elements. They were to be destroyed because they "sinned" against the Lord, and against man. They practiced human sacrifices in places that were special to the Lord. They disrespected (sound familiar) the Alph and the Omega, there time for improvement had ended.
The crusades were in defense of the slaughter of Christians throughout the "known" world by muslim hordes.
The inquisition "killed" approximately 5000 people in over 400 years (not nearly as many as we have all been led to believe).
Now, I will ask you the same question that I asked another liberal (who wouldn't answer the question): would you rather live in a predominantly Christian country or a predominantly muslim country?
There was very little slaughter on the part of the Muslims and a great deal of slaughter by the Crusaders. Most of them were out of work mercenaries. When they invaded Constantinople they murdered everyone there..and horrifically.
Turns out they were Greek Orthodox Christians.
I laugh because you're so desperate to make everybody think you're the smartest kid in class.
You lie, you get caught, you laugh.
Zero integrity, guess that's an "atheist thing?"
your character assessment of me is so far off that it's farce ,but then again everything about you is farcical....
you assume I'm lying but I'm not
here's the proof The worst genocides of the 20th Century
1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi
TM, ®, Copyright © 2009 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arrest of Pinochet in 2000 brings up the issue of which other leaders should be or should have been tried for atrocities committed during their rule. Here is a tentative list of modern mass murderers and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with). In Stalin's and Mao's cases, one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (source: the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war, so they are not counted here. The worst genocide of recent times was committed by many hutus, not just by their leader. Needless to say, I make a big distinction between killing soldiers and killing civilians. Read the bottom of this page for frequently asked questions on controversial actions such as the atomic bombs, the Iraqi war, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also Wars and Casualties of the 20th Century.
The worst genocides of the 20th Century
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) 50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012) 14,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000
For a list of casualties in wars, see this page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main sources:
Charny (1988) Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review
Stephane Courtois: Black Book on Communism (1995)
Matthews: Guiness Book of Records (2000)
Clodfelter: Warfare and Armed Conflicts (1992)
Elliot: Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972)
Bouthoul : A List of the 366 Major Armed Conflicts of the period 1740-1974, Peace Research (1978)
R.J. Rummel: Death by Government - Genocide and Mass Murder (1994)
Matt White's website
Several general textbooks of 20th century history
Notes:
The crimes committed by right-wing dictators have always been easier to track down than the crimes against humanity committed by communist leaders, so the figures for communist leaders like Stalin and Mao increase almost yearly as new secret documents become available. To this day, the Chinese government has not yet disclosed how many people were executed by Mao's red guards during the Cultural Revolution and how many people were killed in Tibet during the Chinese invasion of 1950. We also don't know how many dissidents have been killed by order of Kim Il Sung in North Korea, although presumably many thousands.
I often get asked if Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify as a genocide. I disagree. First of all, why only nuclear weapons? The carpet bombing of German cities and of Tokyo killed the same number of people. Second, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did not start that war: they ended it. It is even debatable if these bombings killed or saved lives: Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people (Germany lost 2 million people, Japan only 300,000, because Japan was never invaded, while Germany was invaded from all sides). Actually more Japanese died in two weeks of battles with the Soviet Union in Manchuria than in the two nuclear bombings. I suspect a nuclear bomb on Berlin would have killed 100,000 people but caused Germany to surrender right away, thus saving many German lives. (I know, it is gruesome to count dead bodies like this; but, again, i didn't start that war, the Germans and the Japanese started it). The USA had a casualty rate of 35% in the battle of Okinawa: they expected to lose one million soldiers in a land invasion of Japan, and the estimates were that Japan would lose the same number of soldiers and many more civilians. Most historians believe that it was the atomic bomb to convince Japan to surrender, and it was the second one: after the first one, there were still members of the Japanese cabinet that were opposed to surrender (the cabinet had to be unanimous in order for the emperor to surrender). Koichi Kido, advisor to emperor Hirohito, said: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief secretary of Cabinet, said that the atomic bombs were a "golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." Thus the Japanese themselves (those who wanted to surrender) seem to indicate that the two atomic bombs were indispensable to end a war that was killing hundreds of thousands of people per battle (the battle of Okinawa killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Nagasaki). It is also estimated that throughout Japan-occupied Asia about 200,000 civilians were dying every month (of disease, hunger, etc): if the atomic bombs helped Japan surrender even just six months earlier, that saved the lives of one million Indonesians, Indochinese, Philipinos, Chinese, etc. (Notable dissenting voices were the two most powerful USA generals, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, who both felt that the atomic bombs were unnecessary to finish Japan. But historical documents prove them wrong: on August 9, the day of Nagasaki, the supreme council of Japan was still split on whether to surrender or continue the war. Even after Nagasaki, the council was still split. The emperor in person had to force them to surrender. The dissenters who wanted to continue the war even tried a coup to overthrow the emperor rather than obey the order to surrender. There is no evidence that Japan would have surrendered any time soon without the two atomic bombs).
People die in wars. During the previous world-war, millions died of everything from guns to chemical weapons. The fact that a more or less efficient weapon is used to fight a war does not constitute genocide, per se.
It is not the weapon, but the intent. Churchill's and Truman's intent was to end the war, not to exterminate the peoples (which they could have done easily, had they wanted to). In fact, I think that Churchill and Truman are exemplary of how to treat a defeated enemy: instead of annihilating the enemies, they helped Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves and become as strong and wealthy as they were before the war. It may have been the first time in history.
Also we know that Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Yoshio Nishina in Japan were working on an atomic bomb: what if they had had the time to complete one? Heisenberg in Germany had failed to correctly calculate the critical mass of uranium required to sustain a chain reaction, but Nishina in Japan had just done that in 1944. It was a matter of time before Germand and Japanese scientists would find out the right recipe. Thus the first bomb was justified, and (as crazy as it sounds) it saved a lot of lives, probably millions of lives (not just Japanese lives, but lives of all the nations that were being massacred by the Japanese). Estimates of 1945 (based on the ratio of civilians and soldiers who died in similar ventures) were that one million USA soldiers would have died and 10-20 million Japanese would have died during a USA invasion of Japan. Last but not least, the USA dropped 720,000 leaflets on Hiroshima and other cities two days earlier, warning of the impending destruction of the city.
It is debatable, instead, if the second atomic bomb was necessary. The USA did drop millions of leaflets over Japan to convince the population to revolt and the emperor to surrender. But the USA only waited three days to see the effect of the first atomic bomb and of its leaflets. We now know that Japan would not have surrendered. At a cabinet meeting after the first atomic bomb the Japanese generals convinced the civilian ministers to continue the war. After the first bomb, Nishina (head of the Japanese nuclear program) was asked if it was possible that the USA could build another atomic bomb within six months: obviously the people who asked him the question were not going to surrender unless a second bomb was possible. Even after the second atomic bomb the Japanese generals still argued in favor of continuing the war. It was the emperor in person who ordered the surrender. Even the surrender was not quite what the USA wanted: the Japanese requested that the emperor be left in control of Japan. Truman was under pressure from the USA public opinion to execute or at least jail the emperor. The plan for the land invasion of Japan was ready. Eventually Truman decided that he would rather live with the public anger of having appeased the Japanese emperor then with more USA soldiers dead in the war, and so decided to accept the Japanese conditions. All the evidence indicates that the second atomic bomb was crucial to end the war.
I've been asked why i blame the USA only for part of the civilian deaths in Vietnam while i blame the Soviet Union for all of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The USA "invasion" of Vietnam is not as clearcut as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:
1. Even today many in Vietnam think that the aggressor was North Vietnam, not the USA, at least at the beginning, whereas everybody in Afghanistan blames the Soviet Union for that invasion. Nobody welcomed the Soviet Union, whereas about half of Vietnam welcomed the USA.
2. When the Soviet Union withdrew, almost no Afghani followed them, whereas, when the USA withdrew, about eight million Vietnamese left with them and about three million ran away from Vietnam in the following decades risking their lives (the "boat people").
3. There are documented large-scale atrocities by the North Vietnamese against their own population (read the Black Book of Communism) while i haven't seen evidence of any large-scale atrocity by the Afghani fighters against their own population (why would they do that if the population was massively opposed to the USSR?)
4. The Soviet Union tried to invade the WHOLE of Afghanistan. The USA never tried to invade the northern part of Vietnam: it simply fought the Vietcong that wanted to annex south Vietnam to north Vietnam (if you read the history of the country, north and south Vietnam have fought wars for more than 1,000 years: go to the Timeline of Indochina and look for Annam and Champa. the ancient names of the two kingdoms). When the USA bombed civilians in North Vietnam, then i consider it a war crime.
The most frequently asked questions are always about current unpopular USA presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... The moment the USA elects a new president, i start receiving emails asking to add him to the list of "genociders". The moment the president leaves office the same people forget about him and jump on the next one. Can we consider President Bush a genocider due to all of the civilians killed in Iraq under his watch? I don't think so, because the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were NOT killed by US troops. It is genocide, but the "genociders" are others, and the situation is still too murky to decide who exactly killed those 100,000 civilians. (If Bush is indirectly guilty of it, then certainly Islam is too). The USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for "genocider", since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. However, i have never received a single email nominating Putin...
Specifically about Bush (the hot topic between 2003 and 2008). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he or anybody working for him or Blair or the Australian prime minister wanted to kill Iraqi civilians. And even less evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed in any large number by US soldiers. The Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers are estimated at about 4% of all deaths, which is a little over 5,000. With all due respect for those families, a seven-year war that kills only 5,000 people (less than 1,000 a year) does not register anywhere in the history of the world. All the other civilians were killed by militias, suicide bombers, etc. In fact, all the documents show that some caution was taken by the US and Britain to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with Vietnam, when the US bombed densely populated areas knowing that thousands of civilians would die. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be the first large-scale wars in which the winners went out of their way to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with any other war. Future generations (who will face other crises and will be more concerned with their presidents than Bush II) may see more clearly who is responsible for those killings. Most of them were killed by fellow Iraqis or at least fellow Muslims, not by US soldiers. Once we remove all the personal emotions against Bush, it is self-evident who/what killed those Iraqi civilians.
so blow me
I'm sorry, was it supposed too?The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.Hey, if reality doesn't suit you, just lie.
Josef Stalin was no more an Atheist than Idi Amin was an African.
So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution....
also you have no proof that Stalin's so called atheism was in any way responsible for his actions....
on the other hand christians have always been proud to kill in the name of god!
Sorry, your evidence does not point out that Stalin feared, or worshipped the Lord. Your evidence makes him look more like an atheist or a self-appointed god (isn't that really what all atheists are?). Because someone knows enough to manipulate "religion" does not make them "religious".
:LOL::LOL::LOL:I know you guys want to pretend the Lord decided to wipe out these sweet, sweet people that never did anything wrong. When the Hebrews left Egypt, the Lord used these "slaves" to defeat some very, very proud and strong people. The Lord tells the Hebrews "why" these peoples are to be killed where they are (there is no indication that the Lord sent Hebrews all over the earth to "dispatch" any that survived, unlike some other "faiths"), and it did not have to do with gaining the land. That was easy for the Lord, He could have done that with famines or moving the elements. They were to be destroyed because they "sinned" against the Lord, and against man. They practiced human sacrifices in places that were special to the Lord. They disrespected (sound familiar) the Alph and the Omega, there time for improvement had ended.
The crusades were in defense of the slaughter of Christians throughout the "known" world by muslim hordes.
The inquisition "killed" approximately 5000 people in over 400 years (not nearly as many as we have all been led to believe).
Now, I will ask you the same question that I asked another liberal (who wouldn't answer the question): would you rather live in a predominantly Christian country or a predominantly muslim country?
There was very little slaughter on the part of the Muslims and a great deal of slaughter by the Crusaders. Most of them were out of work mercenaries. When they invaded Constantinople they murdered everyone there..and horrifically.
Turns out they were Greek Orthodox Christians.
What world do you live in, LSD world? The muslims slaughtered the people in the Mecca area to take over there. They slaughtered peaceful peoples in the ME to take over there. They slaughtered the people in North Africa to take over there. They slaughtered people around the Mediteranian to take over there. They slaughtered people in the British isles to take over there. They slaughtered people in Eastern Europe until some of the noble used tactics that were as "ruthless" as the muslim methods to stop the invasion there. And that was in the first four hundred years. Since then, things have not changed, today, there was news about a couple being "accused" of having children out of wedlock, were the muslim oppressors stoned them to death, on an accusation.
Did the Crusaders fight back? YES! Did the Crusaders try to win? YES!
That is how war is. The muslims started it, and have been starting wars ever since. And those that embrace corruption defend the system of deceit, destruction, death, decay and dust. They will not admit the facts that can be seen with basic observation skills. Ask a child where they want to live: in the dust or in a country that is predominantly Christian (where the Lord blessed those that worshipped Him) where people are not OPPRESSED and do not live in fear, and do not have to build a wall around their house to protect their family. Even a child will tell you, quickly, dust is not a good way to live.
did they need to be?or are you talking out your ass?I laugh because you're so desperate to make everybody think you're the smartest kid in class.You lie, you get caught, you laugh.
Zero integrity, guess that's an "atheist thing?"
your character assessment of me is so far off that it's farce ,but then again everything about you is farcical....
you assume I'm lying but I'm not
here's the proof The worst genocides of the 20th Century
1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi
TM, ®, Copyright © 2009 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arrest of Pinochet in 2000 brings up the issue of which other leaders should be or should have been tried for atrocities committed during their rule. Here is a tentative list of modern mass murderers and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with). In Stalin's and Mao's cases, one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (source: the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is held responsible for the death of millions by Ukrainians, but "only" half a million people were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war, so they are not counted here. The worst genocide of recent times was committed by many hutus, not just by their leader. Needless to say, I make a big distinction between killing soldiers and killing civilians. Read the bottom of this page for frequently asked questions on controversial actions such as the atomic bombs, the Iraqi war, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also Wars and Casualties of the 20th Century.
The worst genocides of the 20th Century
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 6,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) 570,000
Sukarno (Communists 1965-66) 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh)
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) 50,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000
Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000
Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000
Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012) 14,000
Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000
Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria)
Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000
Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500
Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000
Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) 2,000
For a list of casualties in wars, see this page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main sources:
Charny (1988) Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic Review
Stephane Courtois: Black Book on Communism (1995)
Matthews: Guiness Book of Records (2000)
Clodfelter: Warfare and Armed Conflicts (1992)
Elliot: Twentieth Century Book of the Dead (1972)
Bouthoul : A List of the 366 Major Armed Conflicts of the period 1740-1974, Peace Research (1978)
R.J. Rummel: Death by Government - Genocide and Mass Murder (1994)
Matt White's website
Several general textbooks of 20th century history
Notes:
The crimes committed by right-wing dictators have always been easier to track down than the crimes against humanity committed by communist leaders, so the figures for communist leaders like Stalin and Mao increase almost yearly as new secret documents become available. To this day, the Chinese government has not yet disclosed how many people were executed by Mao's red guards during the Cultural Revolution and how many people were killed in Tibet during the Chinese invasion of 1950. We also don't know how many dissidents have been killed by order of Kim Il Sung in North Korea, although presumably many thousands.
I often get asked if Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify as a genocide. I disagree. First of all, why only nuclear weapons? The carpet bombing of German cities and of Tokyo killed the same number of people. Second, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did not start that war: they ended it. It is even debatable if these bombings killed or saved lives: Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people (Germany lost 2 million people, Japan only 300,000, because Japan was never invaded, while Germany was invaded from all sides). Actually more Japanese died in two weeks of battles with the Soviet Union in Manchuria than in the two nuclear bombings. I suspect a nuclear bomb on Berlin would have killed 100,000 people but caused Germany to surrender right away, thus saving many German lives. (I know, it is gruesome to count dead bodies like this; but, again, i didn't start that war, the Germans and the Japanese started it). The USA had a casualty rate of 35% in the battle of Okinawa: they expected to lose one million soldiers in a land invasion of Japan, and the estimates were that Japan would lose the same number of soldiers and many more civilians. Most historians believe that it was the atomic bomb to convince Japan to surrender, and it was the second one: after the first one, there were still members of the Japanese cabinet that were opposed to surrender (the cabinet had to be unanimous in order for the emperor to surrender). Koichi Kido, advisor to emperor Hirohito, said: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief secretary of Cabinet, said that the atomic bombs were a "golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." Thus the Japanese themselves (those who wanted to surrender) seem to indicate that the two atomic bombs were indispensable to end a war that was killing hundreds of thousands of people per battle (the battle of Okinawa killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Nagasaki). It is also estimated that throughout Japan-occupied Asia about 200,000 civilians were dying every month (of disease, hunger, etc): if the atomic bombs helped Japan surrender even just six months earlier, that saved the lives of one million Indonesians, Indochinese, Philipinos, Chinese, etc. (Notable dissenting voices were the two most powerful USA generals, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, who both felt that the atomic bombs were unnecessary to finish Japan. But historical documents prove them wrong: on August 9, the day of Nagasaki, the supreme council of Japan was still split on whether to surrender or continue the war. Even after Nagasaki, the council was still split. The emperor in person had to force them to surrender. The dissenters who wanted to continue the war even tried a coup to overthrow the emperor rather than obey the order to surrender. There is no evidence that Japan would have surrendered any time soon without the two atomic bombs).
People die in wars. During the previous world-war, millions died of everything from guns to chemical weapons. The fact that a more or less efficient weapon is used to fight a war does not constitute genocide, per se.
It is not the weapon, but the intent. Churchill's and Truman's intent was to end the war, not to exterminate the peoples (which they could have done easily, had they wanted to). In fact, I think that Churchill and Truman are exemplary of how to treat a defeated enemy: instead of annihilating the enemies, they helped Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves and become as strong and wealthy as they were before the war. It may have been the first time in history.
Also we know that Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Yoshio Nishina in Japan were working on an atomic bomb: what if they had had the time to complete one? Heisenberg in Germany had failed to correctly calculate the critical mass of uranium required to sustain a chain reaction, but Nishina in Japan had just done that in 1944. It was a matter of time before Germand and Japanese scientists would find out the right recipe. Thus the first bomb was justified, and (as crazy as it sounds) it saved a lot of lives, probably millions of lives (not just Japanese lives, but lives of all the nations that were being massacred by the Japanese). Estimates of 1945 (based on the ratio of civilians and soldiers who died in similar ventures) were that one million USA soldiers would have died and 10-20 million Japanese would have died during a USA invasion of Japan. Last but not least, the USA dropped 720,000 leaflets on Hiroshima and other cities two days earlier, warning of the impending destruction of the city.
It is debatable, instead, if the second atomic bomb was necessary. The USA did drop millions of leaflets over Japan to convince the population to revolt and the emperor to surrender. But the USA only waited three days to see the effect of the first atomic bomb and of its leaflets. We now know that Japan would not have surrendered. At a cabinet meeting after the first atomic bomb the Japanese generals convinced the civilian ministers to continue the war. After the first bomb, Nishina (head of the Japanese nuclear program) was asked if it was possible that the USA could build another atomic bomb within six months: obviously the people who asked him the question were not going to surrender unless a second bomb was possible. Even after the second atomic bomb the Japanese generals still argued in favor of continuing the war. It was the emperor in person who ordered the surrender. Even the surrender was not quite what the USA wanted: the Japanese requested that the emperor be left in control of Japan. Truman was under pressure from the USA public opinion to execute or at least jail the emperor. The plan for the land invasion of Japan was ready. Eventually Truman decided that he would rather live with the public anger of having appeased the Japanese emperor then with more USA soldiers dead in the war, and so decided to accept the Japanese conditions. All the evidence indicates that the second atomic bomb was crucial to end the war.
I've been asked why i blame the USA only for part of the civilian deaths in Vietnam while i blame the Soviet Union for all of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The USA "invasion" of Vietnam is not as clearcut as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:
1. Even today many in Vietnam think that the aggressor was North Vietnam, not the USA, at least at the beginning, whereas everybody in Afghanistan blames the Soviet Union for that invasion. Nobody welcomed the Soviet Union, whereas about half of Vietnam welcomed the USA.
2. When the Soviet Union withdrew, almost no Afghani followed them, whereas, when the USA withdrew, about eight million Vietnamese left with them and about three million ran away from Vietnam in the following decades risking their lives (the "boat people").
3. There are documented large-scale atrocities by the North Vietnamese against their own population (read the Black Book of Communism) while i haven't seen evidence of any large-scale atrocity by the Afghani fighters against their own population (why would they do that if the population was massively opposed to the USSR?)
4. The Soviet Union tried to invade the WHOLE of Afghanistan. The USA never tried to invade the northern part of Vietnam: it simply fought the Vietcong that wanted to annex south Vietnam to north Vietnam (if you read the history of the country, north and south Vietnam have fought wars for more than 1,000 years: go to the Timeline of Indochina and look for Annam and Champa. the ancient names of the two kingdoms). When the USA bombed civilians in North Vietnam, then i consider it a war crime.
The most frequently asked questions are always about current unpopular USA presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... The moment the USA elects a new president, i start receiving emails asking to add him to the list of "genociders". The moment the president leaves office the same people forget about him and jump on the next one. Can we consider President Bush a genocider due to all of the civilians killed in Iraq under his watch? I don't think so, because the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were NOT killed by US troops. It is genocide, but the "genociders" are others, and the situation is still too murky to decide who exactly killed those 100,000 civilians. (If Bush is indirectly guilty of it, then certainly Islam is too). The USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for "genocider", since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. However, i have never received a single email nominating Putin...
Specifically about Bush (the hot topic between 2003 and 2008). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he or anybody working for him or Blair or the Australian prime minister wanted to kill Iraqi civilians. And even less evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed in any large number by US soldiers. The Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers are estimated at about 4% of all deaths, which is a little over 5,000. With all due respect for those families, a seven-year war that kills only 5,000 people (less than 1,000 a year) does not register anywhere in the history of the world. All the other civilians were killed by militias, suicide bombers, etc. In fact, all the documents show that some caution was taken by the US and Britain to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with Vietnam, when the US bombed densely populated areas knowing that thousands of civilians would die. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be the first large-scale wars in which the winners went out of their way to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with any other war. Future generations (who will face other crises and will be more concerned with their presidents than Bush II) may see more clearly who is responsible for those killings. Most of them were killed by fellow Iraqis or at least fellow Muslims, not by US soldiers. Once we remove all the personal emotions against Bush, it is self-evident who/what killed those Iraqi civilians.
so blow me
And most of those listed were not Christian, just sayin' ....
did they need to be?or are you talking out your ass?
what about thou shall not kill..all you have to do is watch the news to see christians killing
that would be incorrect and stupid.did they need to be?or are you talking out your ass?
what about thou shall not kill..all you have to do is watch the news to see christians killing
daws, why not simply claim that Stalin, Mao, Ho and Pol Pot were the Atheist versions of Mother Teresa? They never killed anyone, they spread love and peace..
that would be incorrect and stupid.
but then, you are a master at being both of them .
is that the imaginary friend you talk about .that would be incorrect and stupid.
So it would be a typical daws post...
but then, you are a master at being both of them .
At least I didn't try to claim Stalin only killed 6 million...
Some fucking moron actually claimed that here....
ROFL
