Terrible people you respect.

[ezeroast]

Haha! You can add diplomacy in that list. He was shite at it. Oh, and politics. He did more bad then good politically as well.

If George Bush died in 2001 he would have gone down as a martyr and one of the most heroic presidents of all time.

Playing the "what if" game doesn't change reality and I don't really see how it creates a valid point.

instead of "what if" we could call it "If only"

 

[Drakos.Amatras]

I must ask...elaborate on what terrible things Gandhi did?

O_O

Please do. I'm curious myself.

Well, he molested children, beat his wife and was incredibly racist.

What?

Ok, that demands a source. But I hope you're kidding.

What do you mean source?

It's common knowledge!

Common knowledge? About Gandhi? Huh. Where can I read about that?

Hey, there's this great new site, no ones heard of it, it's called Wikipedia(!)

-_- Of course I know about it. I'm asking which section. And other sources as well; I don't feel secure in the info I can get from only one source. Not to mention Wikipedia isn't 100% reliable.

Even if it's true, it's also common knowledge that Gandhi was at the helm of the nonviolence movement, and respected by the whole of India. (Maybe those misdeeds were back from when he was younger and not as mature? I still have to confirm.) He did so much good that I can't imagine him as a "terrible person" as said by the topic title.

EDIT:
I looked up on what you accused Gandhi of: child molesting, domestic violence, and racism. On the very backwater 'news' site [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi] you mentioned.

Spoiler: Details

In May 1883, the 13-year old Mohandas was married to 14-year old Kasturbai Makhanji in an arranged child marriage, according to the custom of the region. Recalling the day of their marriage he once said, "As we didn't know much about marriage, for us it meant only wearing new clothes, eating sweets and playing with relatives."

You didn't mention any of the facts I bolded here. Only that he "molested" "children"; they were husband and wife, married according to the tradition/culture in India at the time, and on the consent of both of their families. I don't see how it equates to "molestation".

Some of Gandhi's early South African articles are controversial. On 7 March 1908, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion of his time in a South African prison: "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised?the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals." Writing on the subject of immigration in 1903, Gandhi commented: "We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do... We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race." During his time in South Africa, Gandhi protested repeatedly about the social classification of blacks with Indians, whom he described as "undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs". Remarks such as these have led some to accuse Gandhi of racism. It is worth noting though that the word Kaffir had a different connotation in Gandhi's time than its current day meaning.

Okay, fair enough. ...But you forgot to mention this.

Two professors of history who specialise in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893?1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, led to inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s." At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight...the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."

I can't find details on domestic violence. But wouldn't surprise me; many people made mistakes back when they were immature.

I'm not surprised that Gandhi had his share of mistakes in the past. But making him out to be a bad guy from a marriage he didn't know or have control of, and only a glimpse of his concepts from before he became the respectable icon? That's a pretty biased and incomplete picture, if you ask me.

 

[Deus mortuus est]

I can't believe that for all the people who brought up Hitler, no one actually mentioned the main thing that Hitler should be respected for.

He may have been insane, ruthless and genocidal, but he sure was one hell of a snappy dresser.

Say what you like, that was a fine looking Reich.

Indeed, they did terrible things, but they did so looking awesome. I mean using symbols such as the roman eagle, lightning, skulls, runes and various crosses is proof of some propaganda guy/girl doing his/her job properly. Combine this with the colors red, black and white and get even more awe-inspiring pictures in your head. Add on some black leather trenchcoats and the allies didn't stand a chance when it came to looks.

On a more serious note, I do respect Simo Häyhä. While he was a cold blooded murderer (war is really no excuse in my mind), he did what he had to to protect what was his, and he did it in an amazing way.

 

[T8B95]

Stalin, for reasons already mentioned. Yes, he killed millions upon millions of his own people, but this was the guy who led the country that crushed Nazi Germany.

Mao. One of the most visionary individuals of the 20th century, managed to make a Communist regime that actually worked.

Castro. Actually, I don't know why people think Castro is bad.