Judging history pt 2

[Husar]

This topic I want to bring up the issue of when a man has become "history". As you can see from my quote above, I certainly do not view Gal Giap as someone you read about in a history textbook in a boring class. This was a man that many Americans still alive today fought against. A man with a clear case of atrocities and distasteful tactics in order to win a war.

It was actually a war fought for freedom by his side and his enemies had no business being there in the first place except their own imperialistic and political ambitions. If you don't like fighting unfair enemies in other countries, stay out of other countries. If you want to secure your global hegemony at all costs, well, these are the costs.

I wish to hear why his thread should be in good taste and respectful while Osama's thread was aggressive and rampant cheering.

That's for Americans to explain, I didn't cheer about Osama either. I would agree that Osama was a lot more evil but I don't think that having an evil enemy justifies becoming more like that enemy, it just blurs the lines.

But I want this question in specific to be answered, if the War on Terror was deemed a failure and ended tomorrow, and Osama was not killed already but instead died of natural causes 30 years from now, would that death thread show the same neutrality or even positivity that Gal Giap has received today? Do we only show emotion when the monsters are men who have lived in the same time as us?

No.