Imagine what would happen to Fresno or Clown if they tried to lecture some Comanche or Maori on their brutality.

What would happen?
For reasons of civility, let's just say no one would need to ask "what's for dinner" that day.

...murder
Slavery
Subjugation...

There were good Aztecs, probably.
They needed to extract a beating human heart everyday to make the sun rise. I mean, how can we know for sure they were wrong about how celestial motion worked back then?

neither of you know what you're posting about
I'm posting about your goofy, a-historical, sloppy moral relativism and half-baked absolutism masquerading as soft racism.

I was happy to let it go, but since you asked....
For one, the Portuguese were in South America, that the big continent shaped like a ice-cream cone. The Aztecs were on a different continent, the one you've managed to live on this whole time and not know this basic information.
For another, to refer to Iraq as a colonial action means you don't know what a colony is, don't know what Iraq is or both.
And finally, saying "America was nation of people before Europeans wiped them out" while having the advantage of being scarcely coherent still manages to display an ignorance of pre-columbian history that hovers somewhere between laughably stupid and painfully ignorant. And it dismisses the dozens of First People, still alive today, who despite the hand they were dealt, know more about all of this stuff than you do.

I knew I'd trigger you.
Huh? This is fun for me.
To recap, you asked a direct question, got a direct answer, admitted you were wrong then accused me of being triggered.

The Spaniards wiped out the Aztecs all by themselves.
Wrong again, Copernicus. Small pox did most of the heavy lifting. This goes doubly so with N American societies. Most of them never even saw an evil white man. The ones that managed to survive the first few years of colonization gave war back almost as good as they got it. The Seminole for example were only subdued by their own political infighting and greed. They were whipping the US Calvary up and down the southern Atlantic coast for decades. Everyone feared the Comanche for good reason.

isn't the actions of colonization?
No, of course not. The Iraqis eventually elected their own government. I'm not going to defend what we did there but it wasn't colonization. You can prove me wrong by pointing to an American settlement with schools, churches, strip malls Taco Bells and strodes.

It was, and they did.
No, dummy, they didn't. The Iroquois Confederacy was pretty big. You could probably call that a "Nation" and be safe. But the parts of it you might point as evidence really came about after evil white men showed up and in response to them. The major concern of most First Peoples was making war on one another. The idea of owning land was totally ludicrous to Native People. It would be like buying a cloud or the wind. A People can exist without land, just ask the Kurds or any of the other 5000 Peoples around the world who all have a distinct culture and shared history but no Nation of their own.
I mention the Kurds specifically because we should have colonized Iraq. We should have carved the whole thing up like a turkey. The Kurds were good friends to us and deserve a Nation of their own and we betrayed them. But of course had we done that, you'd be here crying about the evil white man who sawed off part of Iraq to make an evil colony.

This disproves that facts Europeans have been the most successful colonizers, how?
I didn't know I was supposed to disprove this, but here goes:
The Chinese are really good colonizers. Many of the people they absorbed into their Empire dont even have names, they're totally gone. Poof. Even after losing most of the major battles with the Mongols they survived intact and to an extent colonized them from within. Serious talent. The Polynesians colonized almost all of the Pacific Ocean -60 million square miles!- in row boats. DNA evidence says they made as far as South America (that's the one shaped like an ice-cream cone).

I assume no one has ever taught you The First Rule of Holes? Huh?

You're just arguing the method
No, I'm explaining what killed them. Believe it or not the small pox virus and human beings are two different things.
The Aztec case is actually really interesting. They were bastards, the NAZIs of the New World. Terrible terrible humans even by the standards of their own time. Cortez got lucky. For one, they had some nonsense prophecy about a white bearded flying serpent and those ships with sails floating effortlessly across the water spooked the hell out of them. La Malinche was the key, though. She wont fit the evil white man narrative very well but she was an amazing person. Must have been genius level IQ, an absolute smoke show by all accounts and she hated the Aztecs. Without her Montezuma would have swiftly fed Cortez and his men to their dogs.
Slight side bar, some friends and I once got kicked out of a bar in Barcelona and threatened with arrest for loudly signing Cortez the Killer. No sense of humor those Catalans.

You know we also installed Saddam. Right?
Look, Ima help you out because you are really stupid. This one should be easy. Point to the American colony where American farmers and car mechanics and dentists live in Iraq and you win.

The were colonized by the Japanese and conquered by the Mongolians.
The ---- tried a few times to hold land on the mainland with varying degrees of success. More rape and pillage than teepee pitching, though. "Conquered" isnt a great word for the Mongols. The whole world was already their Empire, according to them at least. They just showed up one day and said, "hey, nice to meet you, welcome home, here's your tribute schedule". And if you gave them any push back ... heads->spikes-> burn the whole village and turn it into grazing land for their horses. Colonizing took too much effort.
The Chinese are arguably a super power today. Mongolia has a GDP smaller than Hinds County, Mississippi. Japan has no settlements on the mainland and sells used ladies underwear in vending machines and eat the most vile disgusting "food" you can imagine. Seems like the Chinese came out ahead

you jumped in face first begging for attention
I made one little off-hand comment and you've been spazing out and spamming questions.

You might as well be arguing the bullets killed them.
Europeans brought death and disease with them wherever they went.
Sure. They also brought literature, mathematics, science, husbandry and above all else Christianity.
Hows the Christian population in Iraq doing, BTW?

Bullets, not so much. Cortez had about 12 cannon and they were used mostly for defensive purposes. Horses were better for carrying a Conquistador than carting a cannon. The smoke and noise were effective, "bullets" not so much. Again, you're only displaying how little you know about the whole affair. The war dogs, now they were some real killing machines. Scared the be-jesus out of everyone. 120lbs, spiked collars, clad in armor, totally fearless.

You need to control their government.
"Their" government, shouldn't it be "our" government?

Talking about anything other than the fact the Europeans were the most successful colonizers in history?
That's now the only thing you want to talk about. You've dropped the thinly veiled racism, so that's a win.

You asked me to point out the inaccuracies and there are plenty. You've admitted some, ran from others and I've ignored a few for brevity's sake.

I don't really have a big problem "Europeans were the most successful". We were very successful. "most" successful? I dunno, maybe. It seems to have led to a lot of war and strife while other cultures were able to colonize without all the blood and bile. History will decide long from now, when we are dead, who were the "best" or "most" successful. The whole idea of measuring such a thing in that way displays an infantile ignorance and oversimplification, and in your case racisim bubbling just under the surface.
Like, what football club is the "most successful". Trophies? Fan base? History? Social or political impact? It's hard question to answer.
European colonizers will conquer the moon soon enough, eventually Mars and beyond. That's what human's do, we see a hill and we have to know what's on the other side. In this you see only evil white men because that's how you are made. I feel bad for you, really.

Did you notice you changed "I don't really have have a big problem.." to "I have a big problem"
Honest mistake, I'm sure.

didn't Alexander the Great conquer ALL of civilized world at the time
They usually throw "known world" in there. And I'm not sure we can call Pakistan "civilized" even today.

My goodness you're dumb.
You dumb fkkking re tar d
You fkkking moron
You're an absolute idiot

Rut Row, Scooby.
Looks like someone is "triggered".

Which other cultures did that?
China's take over of Tibet was mostly bloodless, it was a series of negotiations over decades. Many of the expansions by various Chinese dynasties were relatively bloodless (obviously many were not). They could show up with a huge army and people fell in line. Look at how they treat Taiwan today. They could roll the whole island up in an afternoon but take a slow measured approach. When Taiwan eventually comes back into the fold (or declares independence) was that an experiment in colonization?
Do I get to count it as peaceful colonization when people simply walked over a land bridge and set up shop where no one was living?
Many African expansions were "wars" where a bunch of guys just danced and taunted one another, they made a head count and the team with the higher number won. Tributes were made, women exchanged, no one had to die.
The calculation starts to get messy. What was colonization, what was military expansion, what was just a culture bomb exploding. Is spreading the gene mutations that allow humans to digest rice or milk colonization of the genome. It certainly brought the rise and fall of nations.

I'd also like to point out "Europeans were the most successful" puts alot of people into one big box. The Romans were pretty good, for a while, then not so much. The Italians sucked. How do we rank that? The Germans didn't even make much of an effort. The Dutch were, OK, I guess. They were good at spreading capitalism but they didn't hold on to many colonial assets. Same with the French, some isolated islands here and there, but were they "good" colonizers?
Is it more accurate to say "superior cultures are better at colonizing" and in saying that accept that the loss of human lives however distasteful it seems today is preferable to propping up inferior cultures? Does anyone really wish they were living in Comanche society? Or Druid? Or Maori?
I think what I'm getting at is "European colonization" in the context used mostly in this thread is really a judgemental and accusatory charge for "the destruction of First Peoples in The New World", mostly by the British, Spanish and Portuguese (all under the banner of Christ). It is being used as a euphemism for "something I don't agree with but I'm happy to enjoy its' benefits". Fresno and Clown get to write off the whole affair with 'kill whitey' and simultaneously enjoy all the benefits of a free, pluralists advanced society.
And because of that I just want to say that if there were any Aztecs left, I'd like to offer Clown and Frenso to them on a spit.

You still haven't disproven the fact "Europeans have been the most successful colonizers throughout history."
I didn't need to. All I was asked to do was point out the myriad of "inaccuracies" you've made.

I didn't need to prove you are a semi-literate know-nothing, either. You've done that for me.

white people are murderous colonizers
What's strange is that you think saying it makes you some sort of edge lord. You're like a kid when he finds out Columbus actually landed on Guanahani and didn't really discover anything, much less America.
Yeah, goofus, white people murdered other people then created a whole new society that enables even uneducated racist twinks like you to thrive.
Congratulations and You're Welcome.

Actually. I wrote that because I knew it would trigger you.
You wrote it because you are desperate for a "win", whatever you think that is. You've droned on about it for 2 days now. I don't care one way or another. It doesn't have any value to either of us. I like arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm stubborn to the extent it even annoys me.

I like to read. Read and listen to audio books and podcasts and lectures, I like documentaries and biographies. I don't really watch movies or tv shows and I'm not into music. To me pop culture and current events are just another word for television. I really like history, the older and more mysterious and controversial the better. I like to learn about things that have absolutely no practical use to me whatsoever. I hang out on on r/ snakes to learn how to identify snakes. I dont even like snakes. I like learning about geology and I've never gone rockhounding. I can tell the difference between a white oak and a bur oak and a live oak and this doesn't help me in life in any way. It's all a complete waste of time. I can't even claim this curiosity as an attempt to better myself, it's more like a compulsion. Sometimes I wish I could turn it off. I was up until 3am last night reading about rice (thanks Lamp, -------). I don't think I'm particularly smart but I thoroughly enjoy learning. A "win" for me is when someone teaches me something or changes my mind.

I'm only saying this because when you asked me to, "point out inaccuracies" waaaay back in #27, having already made roughly half the comments on the thread without saying much at all, you unknowingly and lazily tossed a florescent yellow softball directly into my wheelhouse. You were inaccurate about the Portuguese which you have admitted, you were just plain wrong about Iraq which you have completely dropped and you were colossally wrong about pre-columbian societies and never mentioned it again. The really sad thing is that you knew you didn't know much about any of those things but your ego compelled you to walk directly into a hole. Once in the hole you kept digging, you couldn't help yourself or take the advice from others to put down the shovel.

If your follow-up reply had been, "yeah, my bad, I still think White-Man-Bad" that would have been the end of it. I would look like a dick for banging on about it and you would have looked like the reasonable person, big enough to admit when he's wrong. You'd have gotten the "win" you're after and I'd be the jerk kicking a cripple. But you didn't do that. You can't do that. Your ego won't let you stop digging.

So here's some advice then I'll give you the last word if you still want it (and you WILL want it). I mean this as sincerely as someone can and do not offer it as an insult:
The next time you have an idea remind yourself: Don't Do That.
Then go read a ------- book.