N. Korea Threatens War if 'Satellite' Is Shot Down

[Sharwood]

Kim Il Jong did what to Jessica Alba?

Devilhunterred forced her to strip, not Kim.

 

[devilhunterred]

If I were a dictator, I could think of far better things to do with Jessica Alba than make her strip. Though that would be a nice start.

Agreed.

Kate Beckingsale would make a nice finale.

 

[devilhunterred]

I don't think that large-scale attempts at religious persecution, invading nearly every single one of your neighbors, and mass enslavement combined with territorial devastation are picking bones from an egg. I do think that it is highly amusing that you picked one of the worst examples of a poster-child absolute ruler, Louis XIV, who was widely feared by the rest of Europe and by anybody who lived in France who wasn't Catholic. And he's only the most glaring example. There is a difference between "can't be liked by everybody" and being a vicious cockbag.

I see you are prone to exaggerate.

It was a national persecution of non-Catholics to unite the state under a common faith, a practice that almost every European monarch had conducted to unify their states.

Louis XIV didn't invade nearly every single one of his neighbors, it was just the Dutch, Spain, Netherlands, Augsburg and Holland. There still remained the Swiss, Sweden Britain, Savoy, Austria, Denmark, Burgrundy and rest of Europe that he didn't invade. Again another exaggeration.

And mass enslavemet? When did Louis XIV mass enslave people? And need I remind you that slavery was universally accepted back then, the concept of natural rights and equal right didn't exist, so it can't be considered as a fault.

 

[Dachs]

I see you are prone to exaggerate.

It was a national persecution of non-Catholics to unite the state under a common faith, a practice that almost every European monarch had conducted.

Not in the 1680s. Even by the standards of the time the persecution culminating in the Edict of Fontainebleau was excessive. Like the Kulturkampf of von Bismarck, except the Germans didn't go so far as expelling Catholics or crushing Catholic insurgencies. And you've yet to address the devastation of the Palatinate, probably the single most barbaric event to take place in Europe in the latter half of the seventeenth century.

Louis XIV didn't invade nearly every single one of his neighbors, it was just the Dutch, Spainish and Ausburg. There still remained the Swiss, Britain, Savoy and Burgrundy that he didn't invade. Again another exaggeration.

Which is a good thing I'm talking about Akbar there dude. But Louis was pretty bad on that front too. In addition, the League of Augsburg was made up of most of the Germanic states, in addition to some ancillaries.

And mass enslavemet? When did Louis XIV mass enslave people? And need I remind you that slavery was universally accepted back then, the concept of natural rights and equal right didn't exist, so it can't be considered as a fault.

That'd be Pyotr Velikiy in the Greater Wrath of Finland. Slavery may have been somewhat acceptable - though in the Eastern European states they didn't really do much with plantations etc. p) - but it, along with the systematic devastation of the entire country, was recognized as an atrocity by virtually the remainder of Europe.

 

[Hygro]

I see you are prone to exaggerate.

It was a national persecution of non-Catholics to unite the state under a common faith, a practice that almost every European monarch had conducted to unify their states.

Louis XIV didn't invade nearly every single one of his neighbors, it was just the Dutch, Spain, Netherlands, Augsburg and Holland. There still remained the Swiss, Sweden Britain, Savoy, Austria, Denmark, Burgrundy and rest of Europe that he didn't invade. Again another exaggeration.

Lol nations that surround france = the nations you just listed.

Though to your credit you mentioned the Netherlands 3 times, as the Netherlands, Holland, and the Dutch.

 

[potatokiosk]

Louis XIV didn't invade nearly every single one of his neighbors, it was just the Dutch, Spain, Netherlands, Augsburg and Holland. There still remained the Swiss, Sweden Britain, Savoy, Austria, Denmark and Burgrundy that he didn't invade. Again another exaggeration.

The Swiss and Savoy, and possibly Britain depending on how you define neighbor. He was at war with Austria IIRC at some point, Sweden and Denmark weren't his neighbors, Burgundy had been divided between France and the Hapsburgs in the 15th century so part of Burgundy was already his and the other part was at war with him because the Spanish had it.

 

[devilhunterred]

Not in the 1680s. Even by the standards of the time the persecution culminating in the Edict of Fontainebleau was excessive. Like the Kulturkampf of von Bismarck, except the Germans didn't go so far as expelling Catholics or crushing Catholic insurgencies. And you've yet to address the devastation of the Palatinate, probably the single most barbaric event to take place in Europe in the latter half of the seventeenth century.

Alright fine, I will leave it at that. I will have to admit religious history isn't my forte.

Which is a good thing I'm talking about Akbar there dude. .

He did what he had to to unify India under all its indigenous warring tribes.

That'd be Pyotr Velikiy in the Greater Wrath of Finland. Slavery may have been somewhat acceptable - though in the Eastern European states they didn't really do much with plantations etc. p) - but it, along with the systematic devastation of the entire country, was recognized as an atrocity by virtually the remainder of Europe.

Eastern Europe? That was where all the slaves came from....This situation didn't stop until Constantinople was taken by the Turks.

Slaves were considered as spoils of war. Not surprising at all that Fins were enslaved by Peter after they lost. It was just a social norm.

And now you are understating. Slavery wasn't just somewhat accepted, it was entirely accepted.

 

[devilhunterred]

Lol nations that surround france = the nations you just listed.

Though to your credit you mentioned the Netherlands 3 times, as the Netherlands, Holland, and the Dutch.

Yea, I have a bad habbit to forget all the interuseable historical names. I remembered using China, Cathay and Mandarin in the same setence for my history paper.

 

[Dachs]

He did what he had to to unify India under all its indigenous warring tribes.

What? Warring tribes? Vijayanagara was a warring tribe? Further, claiming that India "had to" be united assumes a great deal. And whether it "had to" or not (and if it had to, why under a Muslim aegis?), does that excuse aggression to accomplish those aims as opposed to other means? Akbar conducted a great deal of aggressive war during his reign; he qualifies, if I'm not mistaken, as megalomaniacal.

Eastern Europe? That was where all the slaves came from....This situation didn't stop until Constantinople was taken by the Turks.

Slaves were considered as spoils of war. Not surprising at all that Fins were enslaved by Peter after they lost. It was just a social norm.

This is taking place in the 18th century here. I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about and leave it at that.

 

[Yeekim]

This is taking place in the 18th century here. I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about and leave it at that.

You are being a bit slow today, aren't ya? ....

 

[Dachs]

You are being a bit slow today, aren't ya? ....

It's not 'day', it's 0313 and I don't know what I'm doing online right now.

 

[devilhunterred]

What? Warring tribes? Vijayanagara was a warring tribe? Further, claiming that India "had to" be united assumes a great deal. And whether it "had to" or not (and if it had to, why under a Muslim aegis?), does that excuse aggression to accomplish those aims as opposed to other means? Akbar conducted a great deal of aggressive war during his reign; he qualifies, if I'm not mistaken, as megalomaniacal. .

Ackbar unifying India wasn't just an assumption, it was a neccesity. Indiegenous groups up in the north establish their own dynastyies, openly opposed Ackbar's rule of India and threatened his reign. Attack the northern tribes doesn't make Ackbar aggressive or megalomaniac at all, he did it because he had to.

All in all, Ackbar bestowed more benefits to India than he had ever done harm. There was a reason why Indians vowed to revert back to the old Mughal days during Sepoy rebellion.

This is taking place in the 18th century here. I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about and leave it at that.

You were stating how Eastern Europe was free of slavery.

I was proving that the supplies of slaves actually originated from Eastern Europe, and this didn't stop until Istanbul was installed by the Turks, and yes, it was in the 17th century.

 

[Dachs]

Ackbar unifying India wasn't just an assumption, it was a neccesity. Indiegenous groups up in the north establish their own dynastyies, openly opposed Ackbar's rule of India and threatened his reign. Attack the northern tribes doesn't make Ackbar aggressive or megalomaniac at all, he did it because he had to.

What about Malwa, Gujarat, Bengal, or Khandesh? Further, you are overestimating the effect of preventive war in Mughal security. After Second Panipat, Akbar's control over his territory wasn't threatened, yet he absorbed his neighbors anyway. He expanded his empire in all directions. I mean, honestly, simply accepting 'yeah he had to do this to fulfill nationalistic aims when nationalism doesn't exist' or 'he had to do this because otherwise he would have been destroyed' aren't valid responses. Akbar launched aggressive wars, and a lot of them. (His reputation for tolerance of minorities is certainly undeserved; rather hard to claim something like that when he was in a jihad against Hindu states for most of his reign and periodically used measures like the jizya to force conversions.)

Anyway, the point is that he's a despot who wasn't all fun and games.

All in all, Ackbar bestowed more benefits to India than he had ever done harm. There was a reason why Indians vowed to revert back to the old Mughal days during Sepoy rebellion.

Yes and no. It's a mixed bag, there. Some say that Bahadur Shah Zafar became a symbol because he was the only thing they had.

You were stating how Eastern Europe was free of slavery.

That is what we call a 'strawman'.

I was proving that the supplies of slaves actually originated from Eastern Europe, and this didn't stop until Istanbul was installed by the Turks, and yes, it was in the 17th century.

...what? Konstantinoupolis was seized by Mehmed II in 1453. It has remained under Turkish control since then, with a brief break in 1919-22. While slavery was certainly practiced by some of the states bordering the Ottoman Empire, even the Eastern European ones, it was still not regarded as something within the normal course of affairs for a Russian monarch making a war against a fellow European sovereign. The entire episode of the Greater Wrath was one of Pyotr's big black marks as far as the rest of the Continent was concerned.

Anyway the point is that the examples you chose as 'good' dictators are poor. Try Peisistratos, he's not half bad as a tyrannos.

 

[devilhunterred]

My last post for the night.

What about Malwa, Gujarat, Bengal, or Khandesh? Further, you are overestimating the effect of preventive war in Mughal security. After Second Panipat, Akbar's control over his territory wasn't threatened, yet he absorbed his neighbors anyway. He expanded his empire in all directions. I mean, honestly, simply accepting 'yeah he had to do this to fulfill nationalistic aims when nationalism doesn't exist' or 'he had to do this because otherwise he would have been destroyed' aren't valid responses. Akbar launched aggressive wars, and a lot of them. (His reputation for tolerance of minorities is certainly undeserved; rather hard to claim something like that when he was in a jihad against Hindu states for most of his reign and periodically used measures like the jizya to force conversions.)

Wait a second, tell me, what's wrong with waging wars that are benefitial by obtaining territories and resources for the state?

Yes and no. It's a mixed bag, there. Some say that Bahadur Shah Zafar became a symbol because he was the only thing they had.

No it isn't a mixed bag. He unified India under all its indigenous tribes, expanded its territorities, sustained political stability, established the Mughal dynasty (technically his father did, but Ackbar reinforced the foundation), encouraged a new age of Indian cultural development, although a Muslim he had reasonable tolerance towards the Hundu faith.

He wasn't called Ackbar the Great by historians for nothing.

That is what we call a 'strawman'.

Strawman? You said that Eastern Europe didn't have much to do with plantation complex, which is a subtle indication of saying that it didn't have much to do with slavery.

...what? Konstantinoupolis was seized by Mehmed II in 1453. It has remained under Turkish control since then, with a brief break in 1919-22. While slavery was certainly practiced by some of the states bordering the Ottoman Empire, even the Eastern European ones, it was still not regarded as something within the normal course of affairs for a Russian monarch making a war against a fellow European sovereign. The entire episode of the Greater Wrath was one of Pyotr's big black marks as far as the rest of the Continent was concerned.

Anyway the point is that the examples you chose as 'good' dictators are poor. Try Peisistratos, he's not half bad as a tyrannos.

Smart guy, it's called sarcasm.....

I wasn't the one claiming Constantinople was captured in the 18th century, while calling the other person as "don't know what he's talking about and leave it at that".

They are not at all poor choices. Kangxi, Tang Taizhong, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, Ackbar, were all monarchs, kings and dictators with absolute powers that are embraced, loved and celebrated by their people, made significant contributions, had profound positive impact on their states and widely agreed by historians as some of the greatest rulers ever lived in pre-industrial era.

Peisistratos? You are kidding me right? In that sense, why not Oedipus?

 

[Aleenik]

Did Kim Jong really kidnap movie stars and take them back to North Korea?

 

[devilhunterred]

Did Kim Jong really kidnap movie stars and take them back to North Korea?

Only South Korean ones. After the kidnaping he would offer them generous ammounts of money to stay in NK. Some did, some refused and eventually returned to SK.

 

[Dachs]

Wait a second, tell me, what's wrong with waging wars that are benefitial by obtaining territories and resources for the state?

You do know that not all dictators are oppressive, megalomaniac, savage, ruthless tyrants, right.

Aggressive war in all directions, conducting a jihad against those who had the misfortune to not be his coreligionists, making attempts to religiously engineer the populace as he wanted...I'd say there's a great deal wrong with that.

No it isn't a mixed bag. He unified India under all its indigenous tribes, expanded its territorities, sustained political stability, established the Mughal dynasty (technically his father did, but Ackbar reinforced the foundation), encouraged a new age of Indian cultural development, although a Muslim he had reasonable tolerance towards the Hundu faith.

Bolded parts don't match. The tolerance part is pretty bull. Hell, from what I understand even Wikipedia doesn't try to claim Akbar treated Hindus all that well. And, again, expanding territories depends on what you think about whether that sort of thing is justified.

He wasn't called Ackbar the Great by historians for nothing.

'The Great' does not imply perfection. Alexandros was a vicious megalomaniacal drunkard who had his friends and subordinates murdered on a semiregular basis. He still earned his title.

Strawman? You said that Eastern Europe didn't have much to do with plantation complex, which is a subtle indication of saying that it didn't have much to do with slavery.

It's not my fault that your inference went in the wrong direction.

Smart guy, it's called sarcasm.....

I wasn't the one claiming Constantinople was captured in the 18th century, while calling the other person as "don't know what he's talking about and leave it at that".

No, you claimed

this didn't stop until Istanbul was installed by the Turks, and yes, it was in the 17th century.

Unless you have an extraordinary failure to grasp the concept of an antecedent, there isn't much way to reasonably construe this statement as much other than claiming that the Second Rome was seized by the Ottomans in the 17th century. Which ain't right.

They are not at all poor choices. Kangxi, Tang Taizhong, Peter the Great, Louis XIV, Ackbar, were all monarchs, kings and dictators with absolute powers that are embraced, loved and celebrated by their people, made significant contributions, had profound positive impact on their states and widely agreed by historians as some of the greatest rulers ever lived in pre-industrial era.

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

In addition, Ackbar wasn't a king, dictator, or monarch. He was a reluctant war leader and former slave who escaped from captivity and went on to become the greatest military genius of the Galactic Civil War, orchestrating triumphs like the Battle of Endor, the seizure of Coruscant, and even the posthumous victory of Ebaq 9. You might be thinking of جلال الدین محمد اکبر.

Peisistratos? You are kidding me right? In that sense, why not Oedipus?

I know the difference between somebody who existed and the Latinization of a name of a person who almost certainly did not exist. Apparently you don't.

 

[philippe]

lulz were had in this thread. also, to inform you guys on how north korea is, check this out:

http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1438428757

 

[Aleenik]

Only South Korean ones. After the kidnaping he would offer them generous ammounts of money to stay in NK. Some did, some refused and eventually returned to SK.

wow
and this guy is still in power?
Thats crazy to kidnap movie stars just cuz ur country is a $hit hole because of the oppresive dictatorship running the people like herded animals

why hasnt he been assasinated yet..im sure the CIA could pull it off

 

[devilhunterred]

Aggressive war in all directions, conducting a jihad against those who had the misfortune to not be his coreligionists, making attempts to religiously engineer the populace as he wanted...I'd say there's a great deal wrong with that.

Waging wars and territorial expansion contribute to the "ambitious" characteristics, not "megalomaniactic".

As for "making attempts to religiously engineer the populace as he wanted...", like you said, it was only an half effort attempt that was never done rigorously and ruthlessly, which he could have.

Bolded parts don't match. The tolerance part is pretty bull. Hell, from what I understand even Wikipedia doesn't try to claim Akbar treated Hindus all that well. And, again, expanding territories depends on what you think about whether that sort of thing is justified.

That's why I don't use wiki. Does it tell you that although Hinduism was not encouraged, Indian Hindus could still practice their religion after paying their taxes? Sounds pretty tolerating to me.

How is expanding one's kingdom not justified if it's at the interests of the people by bringing additional resources and materials into the nation?

The Indians and even Hindus certainly didn't seem to have any problems with Akbar's wars.


'

The Great' does not imply perfection. Alexandros was a vicious megalomaniacal drunkard who had his friends and subordinates murdered on a semiregular basis. He still earned his title.

I never said the title of the Great implies perfection on a man.

I am saying that the title of the Great implies he is a great leader.

Obviously Alexander is still titled the Great because his military genius and accomplishments far exceeds his alchoholic flaws.

'

It's not my fault that your inference went in the wrong direction.:

Then tell me, what you were indicating by stating that Eastern Europe has little to do with plantation when the subject at hand was slavery.

No, you claimed.

No, you did.

This is taking place in the 18th century here. I'm going to assume you don't know what you're talking about and leave it at that.

See?

In addition, Ackbar wasn't a king, dictator, or monarch. He was a reluctant war leader and former slave who escaped from captivity and went on to become the greatest military genius of the Galactic Civil War, orchestrating triumphs like the Battle of Endor, the seizure of Coruscant, and even the posthumous victory of Ebaq 9. You might be thinking of ÌáÇá ÇáÏیä ãÍãÏ Ç˜ÈÑ.

I'm a Star Wars fan, deal with it.

Now you are just picking out minor typos and building arguments around them. As well as copying and pasting Arabics from wiki into your post to pretend you actually know something.

That's just low.

I know the difference between somebody who existed and the Latinization of a name of a person who almost certainly did not exist. Apparently you don't.

For Christ's sake, go look up the definition of sarcasm, seriously.