FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Greatest 'Evil Person'? :D





vanille
I liked reading about Hitler. Not that I support the fellow but it's interesting to read on the many ways he tortured, terrified, and killed civilians.
medievalman26
Well since you asked so nicely I would have to say that Vlad the Impaler would be my choice. Have you heard his story? He was a really creepy guy. Deranged too. Pm me if you want me to post what he actually did to earn the title Impaler.

Vlad earned his name "the Impaler" impaling people in his country. It was an ancient practice of litterally putting a pole through someone and standing the pole up and letting them bleed out. Vlad took prisoners and criminals and anyone else he felt like and stuck them on these poles and it was said that he sat underneth them and essentially had a picknic. The rumor is that he drank their blood. (yes he is the orignal dracula) His name in english is Vlad Dracula.

For more information for those who really want it see below.

For more info on impalement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_impaler use this link to get the full story on him.
Zampano
Ivan the Terrible.
I once saw a biography of the character, and the host guy actually said(and he sounds like a real idiot): "Joseph Stalin, who lead the Soviet Union at the time, later commisioned the movie 'Ivan the Terrible'; apparently, Joseph Stalin thought that Ivan the Terrible was a good role model for his communist regime."
If that isn't an unfair conclusion, I don't know what is.
Manntis
Hitler was a very smart man. He could have taken over the whole planet if he wanted to, but greed got the best of him and he failed to do this.

During the mid 1940s the Germans were attacking on two fronts, Britain and Russia. They had air fights in Britain and the Germans were being very victorious as the Britains lost pilots and started to lose defense. It was at this time that Hitler stopped the fighting and turned his attention towards Russia. The biggest country, if he were to take it over, would become a great accomplishment for himself. He sent his troops to invade Russia. The Russians, who were used to the extreme winters, destroyed everything in their path as they retreated. The Germans, who weren't used to the cold, only wearing thin German uniforms, quickly froze and starved to death due to their surroundings being destroyed.

The Germans lost a lot of men due to this and had to retreat. In this time Britain gained up its forces again and made one final last attack with Russia. This brought down the Germans and the rule of Hitler.

PS: I may have skipped over a few major events, or minor events. This is just a quick story telling what happened.
roboguyspacedude
Hitler was an amazing politician but he is definitely one of the most evil people because of all the people he killed. There have been other genocides but his was huge with almost 6 million jews killed.
WickedGravity
Come on people, Hitler as a small fry when you compare him to the likes of Pol Pot, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Lenin and Stalin.

Some of these people simply ate the people they didn't particularly care for.

I mean, family members were just stewed and eaten.

Numbers is not the only way to determine evil.
bogger
WickedGravity wrote:
Papa, Lenin


How are THEY mass murderers? expecially lenin, he didn't murder people for no reason

WickedGravity wrote:
Numbers is not the only way to determine evil.


I agree, along those lines, I think that the inventor of the fossil fuel burner is winning, or maybe God
Montressor
bogger wrote:
How are THEY mass murderers? expecially lenin, he didn't murder people for no reason

You're right, he killed those people for political reasons not just on a whim like Hitler...
Wait, Hitler used the Jews (Slavs, handicapped, homosexual etc) as scapegoats to instill a national fervor (Fascism) to further his vision for a future Germany, which is also a political reason...

If you are considering shear numbers, then Stalin and Mao are the two front runners, but I agree with Wicked Gravity that there are more things to consider.
Twisol
Hitler takes the cake for evilness...

On a side note, my father plays Doom 3, and his username is Vlad the Impaler. Very Happy
{name here}
Stalin is more evil than Hitler, and far more evil than Lenin(who didn't want him to succeed him because he knew Stalin was power hungry and wouldn't uphold communism). He killed a minimum of 10 million to a maximum of 30 million people either directly or indirectly during his rule.
Mordane
"One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic" - Joey S.

But on another matter, is it more evil to commit evil acts and belive you are right, or commit evil acts knowing that its wrong to do so?

Would bring a new perspective on "evil", take Richard the Lionheart for example, killed (I think) 3000 Muslim prisoners just because he believed that his war could not continue with all those prisoners following him around under guard.

Just a thought.
ninjakannon
{name here} wrote:
Stalin is more evil than Hitler, and far more evil than Lenin(who didn't want him to succeed him because he knew Stalin was power hungry and wouldn't uphold communism). He killed a minimum of 10 million to a maximum of 30 million people either directly or indirectly during his rule.

I'm not sure how many people he killed, but I know it was a lot - as many as that though? Where did you find that out?

If it wasn't for Stalin I wouldn't be posting this message... Why? Because he had many of my family, on my mother's father's side killed. They lived in Latvia, behind the Iron Curtain so the world didn't hear about the hell people had to go through there, my mum's father came over the UK before the Second World War and couldn't return after the outbreak of war. So I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Hitler, either.

This doesn't mean that I don't hate the things these two evil men did though - I would much rather not be here typing this post if the lives of millions had been spared.

Who were Pol Pot, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, WickedGravity? And, medievalman26, who was Vlad the Impaler?
bogger
Vlad the impaler was romanian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_Dracula

Pol Pot in cambodia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Baby doc is in Haiti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Duvalier

Eh, I think we should define evil:

Quote:
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.


Therefore, I think that if a person thinks he is right in killing people, he isn't evil, just stupid, because he isn't morally wrong

Along those lines, stalin wasn't evil, paranoia
Hitler was stupid


I'd say pol pot was the most evil

wikipedia wrote:
Out of a population of approximately 8 million, Pol Pot's regime exterminated one quarter, or almost 2 million people. The Khmer Rouge targeted Buddhist monks, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries, people who appeared to be intelligent (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were thrown into the infamous S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were subject to summary execution.
{name here}
ninjakannon wrote:
{name here} wrote:
Stalin is more evil than Hitler, and far more evil than Lenin(who didn't want him to succeed him because he knew Stalin was power hungry and wouldn't uphold communism). He killed a minimum of 10 million to a maximum of 30 million people either directly or indirectly during his rule.

I'm not sure how many people he killed, but I know it was a lot - as many as that though? Where did you find that out?

If it wasn't for Stalin I wouldn't be posting this message... Why? Because he had many of my family, on my mother's father's side killed. They lived in Latvia, behind the Iron Curtain so the world didn't hear about the hell people had to go through there, my mum's father came over the UK before the Second World War and couldn't return after the outbreak of war. So I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Hitler, either.

This doesn't mean that I don't hate the things these two evil men did though - I would much rather not be here typing this post if the lives of millions had been spared.

Who were Pol Pot, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, WickedGravity? And, medievalman26, who was Vlad the Impaler?

You just add up every massacre/genocide he ever did from the sources of the Wikipedia page on him for the deaths and for the information about Lenin I learned that from school those many years ago.
The Great Purge killed about 1.5 million
The Holodomor killed about 3.5 million
Add in the 25,700 Polish Officers massacred in WWII
Also add in the 83, 000 captured German officers from Stalingrad killed in the Soviet concentration camps
There were also many political prisoners killed in the concentration camps.

It makes it easy to imagine that he killed at least 10 million directly or indirectly, especially if you factor in the 8 million red army soliders that died or the total 20 million soviet civilians killed, or however many foreigners killed by the Red Army.
ninjakannon
bogger wrote:
Eh, I think we should define evil:

Quote:
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.


Therefore, I think that if a person thinks he is right in killing people, he isn't evil, just stupid, because he isn't morally wrong

Along those lines, stalin wasn't evil, paranoia
Hitler was stupid

Firstly, thanks for the links - I could have found those myself and wish I had - they were very interesting - but I was busy at the time.

Now, addressing the section of your post which I quoted:
You've missed something. For a start, whether someone thinks, for example, that the killing of innocent people just because of their religion is right or not has no bearing on how "stupid" they may be. Hitler was a very clever man, he wouldn't have been able to exterminate all those people and do so well in WWII if he hadn't been. Just because he thought that what he was doing was justified doesn't mean that it wasn't morally wrong - in fact it was morally wrong. Therefore, he meets the criteria for being evil. See? He was not evil in his own mind, but was evil according to the morals which we are so proud to state. Allong these lines we see that Stalin, Hitler, Pal Pol etcetera, etcetera were in fact evil.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the info, {name here}; I had no idea he had had so many people murdered or was the cause of so many deaths.

I also see clearly how Vlad the Impaler got his title "Impaler". The following quote is quite graphic, so read at your own discretion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_Dracula wrote:
Vlad III Ţepeş has been characterized, by some, as exceedingly cruel. Impalement was Ţepeş's preferred method of torture and execution. His method of torture was a horse attached to each of the victim's legs as a sharpened stake was gradually forced into the body. The end of the stake was usually oiled, and care was taken that the stake not be too sharp; else the victim might die too rapidly from shock. Normally the stake was inserted into the body through the anus and was often forced through the body until it emerged from the mouth. However, there were many instances where victims were impaled through other bodily orifices or through the abdomen or chest. Infants were sometimes impaled on the stake forced through their mother's chests. The records indicate that victims were sometimes impaled so that they hung upside down on the stake.
ZealousZ
why is it that jews are always the target?

my nominees (that havent been mentioned yet):
Tomas de Torquemada - discriminator against jews in 15th century
L. Ron Hubbard -founder of scientology
qebab
{name here} wrote:

It makes it easy to imagine that he killed at least 10 million directly or indirectly, especially if you factor in the 8 million red army soliders that died or the total 20 million soviet civilians killed, or however many foreigners killed by the Red Army.


Have you taken the Gulag into account here?

I quote from wikipedia:
Wikipedia wrote:
[...]In 1931–1932, the Gulag had approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps; in 1935 — approximately 800,000 in camps and 300,000 in colonies (annual averages), and in 1939 — about 1.3 millions in camps and 350,000 in colonies.
[...]During World War II, Gulag populations declined sharply, owing to the mass releases of hundreds of thousands of prisoners who were conscripted and sent directly to the front lines (often into penal battalions, who were thrown into the most dangerous battles and experienced high casualty rates) and a steep rise in mortality in 1942–1943. After World War II the number of inmates in prison camps and colonies again rose sharply, reaching approximately 2.5 million people by the early 1950s (about 1.7 million of whom were in camps).[...]The total deaths shown by the declassified archives in the GULAG from 1931 to 1953 amount to about 1 million in "corrective labor camps." Another archival document contains the number of roughly 1.6 million deaths in both "corrective labor camps" and "corrective labor colonies" during the years 1930-1956 (figures for colonies are included from 1935 onwards). These figures include deaths of political and common prisoners, but they do not include executions of camp inmates that occurred during various waves of terror.


From what I read here, the "official" figures, does not include sending untrained, starved, demoralized and ruined people to the front in one of the most terrible wars the world has ever known - which is quite close to murder, in my opinion. I have heard people speculate about there having disappeared as many as 10 million people from Gulag alone, now if you start adding up the numbers you have already mentioned, 30 million is far from unbelievable. Though, of course there will be some overlap, as many of the people who disappeared in the purges et al were sent to Gulat to never be heard of again.

As for the topic, from what I read it says "Greatest Evil Person", not "Most Evil Person" or "Most Cruel Person". Basically, if you read the topic straightforward, you want to hear about a great person who also was cruel, or evil. I'm sure there are plenty, but I can't think of any that I would nominate in front of all others right now.

If you want to continue the discussion in the trail it has come into right now, you first need to get a meaningful definition of evil, and well, you have to define it objectively so that it can be applied to every person, situation and action. That is no easy task, and it is quite similar to what a lot of Antique Philosophy(sp?) was about. Socrates, and Plato, among others tried to prove that there existed things like objective justice, objective right, wrong etc. And well, if you read about it, you will see that they were quite convinced that they had the right of it when they said that such things did exist, but correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they managed to define many of them.

In my honest opinion, this is a meaningless discussion, as you can't measure evil or cruelness in any good way - you can say that one act was terrible, and maybe one of the worst things to ever commit, yet can you compare it to one that others find just as cruel, and actually manage to understand the evil and measure it up against the other? If you do, you have to consider the sheer number of crimes and actions we're talking about here, we're not talking about hundreds of terrible deaths, not even thousands, but millions. I know myself well enough to know that I will never be able to fully comprehend such large numbers - and especially so when we're talking about individual cases of unjust and cruel actions committed against people, there is simply no way that I can understand it.

So should you keep this discussion going, remember that you all of you probably have different definitions of evil, and this is all highly subjective. Can you truly understand evil?

Personally I would say that evil and wrong, is the absence of good and right. And it is quite easy to feel when someone has committed a good action, or a just action, right? Thing is, someone on the other side of the globe might disagree with what constitutes each. Interesting discussion, but I don't think I have more to add.

Edit: As an afterthought, have all these "great evil persons" achieved only bad? Would we truly know what was good if there was no evil to measure it up against? Would we know what to look out for in the future if we didn't see examples of what happened in the past?

That's it, I'm done with my drunken rantings. Smile
Shake
vanille wrote:
I liked reading about Hitler. Not that I support the fellow but it's interesting to read on the many ways he tortured, terrified, and killed civilians.

Define evil. Hitler?
bogger
ninjakannon wrote:
Hitler was a very clever man, he wouldn't have been able to exterminate all those people and do so well in WWII if he hadn't been. Just because he thought that what he was doing was justified doesn't mean that it wasn't morally wrong - in fact it was morally wrong. Therefore, he meets the criteria for being evil. See? He was not evil in his own mind, but was evil according to the morals which we are so proud to state.


Point taken, I meant lunatic/insane instead of stupid, now that I think of it

And yes, morally, he is wrong by our standards and the publicy accepted, but by others' standards, he's not.

In short, he's evil
{name here} wrote:

You just add up every massacre/genocide he ever did from the sources of the Wikipedia page on him for the deaths and for the information about Lenin I learned that from school those many years ago.
The Great Purge killed about 1.5 million
The Holodomor killed about 3.5 million
Add in the 25,700 Polish Officers massacred in WWII
Also add in the 83, 000 captured German officers from Stalingrad killed in the Soviet concentration camps
There were also many political prisoners killed in the concentration camps.

It makes it easy to imagine that he killed at least 10 million directly or indirectly, especially if you factor in the 8 million red army soliders that died or the total 20 million soviet civilians killed, or however many foreigners killed by the Red Army.


Eh, lenin was dead in WWII, and the great purge was stalin. Come on, true figures at least, please

ZealousZ wrote:
why is it that jews are always the target?

my nominees (that havent been mentioned yet):
L. Ron Hubbard -founder of scientology


From what I know, scientology doesn't kill anyone, they just harass and annoy excessively

Jews are hardly always the targets, It's just that they were the banking middle class, and as such, were picked on. They were the LCD for the aristocracy, and leaders jumped on that as the scapegoat
creezalird
proud to had hitler as the kaiser of the world...haha
{name here}
bogger wrote:

{name here} wrote:

You just add up every massacre/genocide he ever did from the sources of the Wikipedia page on him for the deaths and for the information about Lenin I learned that from school those many years ago.
The Great Purge killed about 1.5 million
The Holodomor killed about 3.5 million
Add in the 25,700 Polish Officers massacred in WWII
Also add in the 83, 000 captured German officers from Stalingrad killed in the Soviet concentration camps
There were also many political prisoners killed in the concentration camps.

It makes it easy to imagine that he killed at least 10 million directly or indirectly, especially if you factor in the 8 million red army soliders that died or the total 20 million soviet civilians killed, or however many foreigners killed by the Red Army.


Eh, lenin was dead in WWII, and the great purge was stalin. Come on, true figures at least, please

I was talking about Stalin and not Lenin.
Quote:

ZealousZ wrote:
why is it that jews are always the target?

my nominees (that havent been mentioned yet):
L. Ron Hubbard -founder of scientology


From what I know, scientology doesn't kill anyone, they just harass and annoy excessively

Here is a slightly disturbing presentation about how scientology kills:
EDIT Actually that might be a bit too graphic. Try http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson
poiko123
Considering Shaka Zulu had nearly no modern technology, he built his armies astoundingly strong. He also trained his armies for 45 mile per day marches, which is pretty impressive. Nonetheless, he was quite brutal.
copperhouse
There have been many evil people in history who have killed and tortured millions of innocent men, women and children. It's important not to glorify them and to remember the many people who suffered because of them
bogger
copperhouse wrote:
There have been many evil people in history who have killed and tortured millions of innocent men, women and children. It's important not to glorify them and to remember the many people who suffered because of them


True, we're trying to vilify them though

{name here} wrote:

I was talking about Stalin and not Lenin.


Ah ok, you didn't make your point clearly, my apologies

Name here wrote:

Here is a slightly disturbing presentation about how scientology kills:
EDIT Actually that might be a bit too graphic. Try http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson


I agree, that is horrific, but while 1 death is a tragedy, I think that it hardly compares to millions

I won't retract my statement however, because all political and religious groups do/did the same thing
reddishblue
Well my first is just typical: Hitler, Reasons: Clear
Mao Ze Dong, Reason: Responsible for killing 50 million of his fellow Chinese and Japanese
DevilsSon
Vlad the Impaler Smile
arowphin
my choice would definitly be imperor palpatine. i mean he had a lightsaber! plus he could kick your hinney with it! LOL! Very Happy but in real history terms i would have to say hitler is my choice.

p.s. sorry all you giddy impailer fans! LOL! Very Happy
Motoracer380
oh definatly hitler..worthless ******
rheanna
Hitler-Bush .. Bush is just sneaky about it..Hitler was more open Laughing
bogger
hitler wasn't overt.

Nobody knew he was performing genocide on the jews, they just thought they were getting "moved".

As with bush, we can't prove he's killed anyone yet, and he's hardly a "historical figure" just yet, is he?
rheanna
Confused Hasn't killed anyone yet? Try Osama with his bogus excuse to go to war. Like the so called WMD when it was cotton...Hey , I admit the guy deserved it but still no excuse. To me that's murder itself. Bush did get away with murder maybe not directly but indirectly. And don't forget our soliders who have died as well in the needless war over the claim of 911 when it had nothing to do with 911.
sonofmorris
directed at all hitler is evil posts

adolf hitler believed he was doing the right thing for his country, he believed that the jews were responsible for all of the bad things that were happening in germany at the time, he had a really bad life when he was growing up, this doesnt justify all the mass kills and things but he did turn germany into the greatest war machine the planet has ever seen, and he should be remembered for that

something you may not have heard however, adolf hitler was addicted to amphetemines, heaped on top of what he had gone through in his life, drove him crazy

Completely and utterly mental... yes

evil.. i would say no

but i suppose that makes way for another question;
What is your definition of evil?

jamo
sonofmorris
bogger
sonofmorris wrote:
adolf hitler believed he was doing the right thing for his country, he believed that the jews were responsible for all of the bad things that were happening in germany at the time, he had a really bad life when he was growing up, this doesnt justify all the mass kills and things but he did turn germany into the greatest war machine the planet has ever seen, and he should be remembered for that


Eh, I think that he also doomed that aforementioned war machine too, 4 years later, no? And the reason the german army was so successful was because of the high standards involved. They could only have 100,000, so those 100,000 were super trained, and then when it expanded, the same training was given to the others

sonofmorris wrote:
something you may not have heard however, adolf hitler was addicted to amphetemines, heaped on top of what he had gone through in his life, drove him crazy

Completely and utterly mental... yes
evil.. i would say no
but i suppose that makes way for another question;
What is your definition of evil?


I already posted that same ideas
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-567824.html&highlight=#567824

And we agreed later on from there that madness is no excuse.

rheanna wrote:
Confused Hasn't killed anyone yet? Try Osama with his bogus excuse to go to war. Like the so called WMD when it was cotton...Hey , I admit the guy deserved it but still no excuse. To me that's murder itself. Bush did get away with murder maybe not directly but indirectly. And don't forget our soliders who have died as well in the needless war over the claim of 911 when it had nothing to do with 911.


Surely that means that all war is evil, which is a very obtuse subject, I'm just speaking of killing people who can't defend themselves, seeing as The taliban is on the offensive at the moment, we'll have to assume that the Taliban can defend himself
vanille
rheanna wrote:
Hitler-Bush .. Bush is just sneaky about it..Hitler was more open Laughing


*applauds* That was funny. ^_^
Montressor
vanille wrote:
*applauds* That was funny. ^_^
Pray tell, how was that funny? If it was true, then that's similar to your laughing at the Holocaust, which is certainly not a laughing matter. If it's false, then your laughing at a lie that compares something to the Holocaust. Surely you don't feel that large scale death is funny in any way or for any reason.
ninjakannon
bogger wrote:
sonofmorris wrote:
adolf hitler believed he was doing the right thing for his country, he believed that the jews were responsible for all of the bad things that were happening in germany at the time, he had a really bad life when he was growing up, this doesnt justify all the mass kills and things but he did turn germany into the greatest war machine the planet has ever seen, and he should be remembered for that


Eh, I think that he also doomed that aforementioned war machine too, 4 years later, no? And the reason the german army was so successful was because of the high standards involved. They could only have 100,000, so those 100,000 were super trained, and then when it expanded, the same training was given to the others

sonofmorris wrote:
something you may not have heard however, adolf hitler was addicted to amphetemines, heaped on top of what he had gone through in his life, drove him crazy

Completely and utterly mental... yes
evil.. i would say no
but i suppose that makes way for another question;
What is your definition of evil?


I already posted that same ideas
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-567824.html&highlight=#567824

And we agreed later on from there that madness is no excuse.

We did agree on this; I've just read what sonofmorris had to say on this matter and it's made me think.

The actions Hitler committed are definitely evil, there's no question about that. Perhaps it's true that he thought he was doing right, even so his actions were still evil.
So he did evil, but was he evil himself? That's what's puzzling me now.
He has good intentions (in his mind), which makes what he is doing good willed, I suppose - yet these intentions lead to evils being dealt. Therefore he is evil, but unintentionally so. This I suppose makes him good at heart, but evil in action. Henceforth, he is evil to the majority of people his decisions and nature affect. I would say that this is enough to for me to say he was definitely evil, but that we cannot put all the blame for this on him because he did not mean all the evil he caused.

What do you think?
Montressor
Reminds me of a Paradise Lost quote;
John Milton wrote:
Evil be thou my good
-the words of Satan after his fall and subsequent presence in Eden as the deceiver.

Because he could not stand to submit to God, he instead devoted himself to evil (he literally decided to become the adversary of God). If you've ever read it, Satan makes a pretty convincing case for evil and appears (at times) to be a hero; a champion of a "better" good.
John Milton wrote:
better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven
and Satan also claimed to be the underdog fighting against a vicious tyrant (God).

If you considered him alone, his motives are noble albeit self-deceptive and incorrect. You can't just apply this relative morality however you want to though, if his morality and decisions didn't affect others, then I can understand someone claiming that Satan (at least in the context of Paradise Lost) is not really all that evil. That is not the case though, his desires (based off of his morals) lead not only legions of other angels to fall, but lead to the fall of man.

Therefore, I am willing to say that a Hitler-esque person (one who truly believes in "evil" as being right) is not any more evil than the next guy as long as that person doesn't create that evil. You still have to consider the effects of their beliefs. I assume it's fairly safe to say that (according to us) a belief in the extermination of any race is evil, even if a person truly believes that the extermination of that race is good. You can label Hitler as mad and evil, but being mad doesn't absolve his evil.
[/end of personal beliefs]
bogger
montressor thank you, I think that settled THAT little philosophical question Wink

We can't prove it either way, so in reality, it isn't an historical question, but a philosophical one, and I hate that forum, so I'm not gonna post it there!
Apewebbi
Hitler, because many people have died because of him Sad
Danielbeech
Hitler is probably the best person at being evil because he was very good at getting people to do what he wanted as for George Bush he's just trying to make the world a better place by killing innocent people Sad is there anyone even looking for Osama Bin Laden or are they all fighting in Iraq Question
Vrythramax
For numbers of murders, I would have to vote for Joseph Stalin (what a party animal....sorry for the pun), but as for the most evil...that's an extremely wide catagory. I would welcome suggestions....but I don't feel qaulified at this point to denegrate a single leader/ruler/military as the single most "Evil".

Put into the context of who's killed more and who was the most evil.....does anyone care to comment? (I have a few in mind that may surprise some)
cloudship
the way to be the greatest evil person is resulted in two subconditions:

first of all, the person is evil and wants to do evil things.

and another condition is the environment, the social status and the power commanded by him, so that the influence of his evilness could be amplified to the most extend.

I think the most evilest person still lies inside everyone's heart. Whenever he came into power, he would have the probability to become the real most evilest person.

So far, history is to be read by us to tell how evil and how eviler human beings could be. hehe
medievalman26
I have seen that a lot of people have been asking for a definition of "evil". Well here it is evil definition
adj.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

That is taken directly from a dictionary.

So, basically it is up to you to decided whether an action or person is evil. You have to decide for yourself what is evil. You can choose to say that Hitler was evil (I definitely do) or not, you can say that Bush is evil; you could even say that the crusaders were evil because from a certain perspective, you could say that anyone is evil. In the end it truly is up to you to decide who is evil from your own perspective.
ZealousZ
bogger wrote:


ZealousZ wrote:
why is it that jews are always the target?

my nominees (that havent been mentioned yet):
L. Ron Hubbard -founder of scientology


From what I know, scientology doesn't kill anyone, they just harass and annoy excessively


Scientology doesn't massively harm people physically but they definitely cause emotional, psychological and financial harmf

killing is not the only activity of an evil being
bassman
I'm not sure there's really a very decidable answer to this question. One thing is for sure, no matter what you think of Bush, there's no way in hell you can call him as "evil" as a Hitler, Stalin, or even Saddam Hussein. Yes, maybe 911 was no excuse to go after Hussein, but to say that Bush and his Guantanamo Bay, WMD debacle, etc. etc. is on the same level as this man who knowingly killed many thousands of his own countrymen simply because of their ethnicity is ridiculous. With all the problems in the US right now, I doubt there would be very many who would say that our policies are inherantly racist. Those at Guantanamo Bay were / are there because they are suspected to have committed crimes against the United States, which is very different from from killing people simply because they are Kurds or Hitler killing people because they are Jews, gay, etc.
arakavaz
Font colour: #583
Azmo
My answer would be Stahlin, and ye, I got some facts about it too Smile

First of all, germany had a reason to go to war, Hitler didnt start it. The shoot in sarajevo.. tata, and chain reaction cause of all allies etc..

Anyways, before Lenin died, he wrote a letter to the goverment of russia, warning them for stahlin, his plans and what he would do if they gave him the power. no one listen tho, and we all know what happen.. or, do we? It doesn't seem like it.. Historybooks only cover the german part of WW2.. Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, and his SS and all companions. BUT Hitler did not kill his own people, atleast not as Stahlin did.

Hitler lead his people in a war for something they belived in (read, he made them belive in, if you want, personal opinion), and Stahlin fought that.. yes.. that's a war... the basics.. you belive in diferent things.. just as all civil wars in the US.. BUT sitting in their foxholes, waiting for next BOOM, Stahlin orders his troups to attack.. up from the foxhole, run towards the german, who are still in their foxhole, easy shooting down every single russian.. yep.. it's a war.. with a dumbass leader and some crappy tactics.. still a war tho..

BUT russian soldiers turning around during those attacks, was not taken back, was not helped out since the situation didnt hold.. they was shot down by their own people. If you give up, you turn your back on stahlin, and you should die.. and so they did..

That's where the war turns from a war to a slaughter... Killing your own men just because you can't think of a better tactic.. hm..

anyawys.. thats my opinion about this.. then I dont like Hitlers idea either about the jews.. but point is that they fought for something they belived in.. doesnt make the actions less evil, but it makes sence...

Killing your own people doesnt.. not in situations like this, not ever.

P.S. War doesnt make sence either, not now, not in history, not ever..
with a few exceptions like the civil war in US.. where the slaves were set free etc..
Vrythramax
@azmi

Not to mention Stalin's decimation of his officers corps to "insure loyalty", he murdered a full third of his Officer corps simply to make an example to the rest of the troops.
Azmo
Vrythramax wrote:
@azmi


w00t? watch it or I'll become the most evil person ! Razz

it ends with an O! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
avpx
WickedGravity wrote:
Come on people, Hitler as a small fry when you compare him to the likes of Pol Pot, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Lenin and Stalin.

Some of these people simply ate the people they didn't particularly care for.

I mean, family members were just stewed and eaten.

Numbers is not the only way to determine evil.


He didnt kill them.. he seperated families and gave the members of the family look at their children being burnt in the gas chambers..
He gave small babies to a terrible experiments and systematicaly destroyed more then 6 million jewish families just becuase they are jews.
I dont think there can be anythign worse then this.
Vrythramax
Azmo wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
@azmi


w00t? watch it or I'll become the most evil person ! Razz

it ends with an O! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


My sincere apologies Azmo for the mispelling, it was a simple typo. Embarassed
palavra
who do you think most evil person in bible?
Montressor
I like the person that uttered "curse God and die", but I'm not sure she qualifies as the most evil one...
shwetanshu
Changez Khan, Hitler and any person who helped in capturing other countries just for one's own gud
Vrythramax
palavra wrote:
who do you think most evil person in bible?


That particular question should have been posted in the "Philosophy and Religion" Forum.

Please post to the correct forums.
brucedes
My favourite "evil" person is Genghis Khan, because despite his reputation, he wasn't the blood-thirsty butcher he was made out to be (But he did kill a lot, I'll admit).

However, he also created a very fair legal system, and a lot of his attacks weren't instigated him. For example, he attacked on tribe because they boiled some of his generals alive because they were dishonoured. Also, the leader of that tribe was his blood brother, and he was willing to spare him, however, his friend requested he give him an honourable death (He broke his back)

So despite his reputation, he wasn't as bad as people make him out to be.
Vrythramax
brucedes wrote:
My favourite "evil" person is Genghis Khan, because despite his reputation, he wasn't the blood-thirsty butcher he was made out to be (But he did kill a lot, I'll admit).

However, he also created a very fair legal system, and a lot of his attacks weren't instigated him. For example, he attacked on tribe because they boiled some of his generals alive because they were dishonoured. Also, the leader of that tribe was his blood brother, and he was willing to spare him, however, his friend requested he give him an honourable death (He broke his back)

So despite his reputation, he wasn't as bad as people make him out to be.


You may want to read a little deeper about him, what you have stated has been crystalized by movies, not actual facts. Why not tell the rest of the users how he "mercifully" killed his blood brother by breaking his back?

I know how.

*FACT* You can survive a broken back even in those times.
rheanna
Eager Pysop journalists working on News At CNN hired in 2000 Cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY98a93gp1k&mode=related&search=

Let's keep taking the news as credible people..[The Holy Gossip]. Rolling Eyes

Released government documents Cool
http://tinyurl.com/yyykdx
http://tinyurl.com/yc7mag *I think this one is the CNN one
http://tinyurl.com/ufdwa
http://tinyurl.com/y4kfhb *Counter-propaganda*Proves the MEDIA LIES and so does our GOVERNMENT.. Cool

200 Military Document Links
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vf01.cfm?folder=34&outfit=pmt
brucedes
Vrythramax wrote:
You may want to read a little deeper about him, what you have stated has been crystalized by movies, not actual facts. Why not tell the rest of the users how he "mercifully" killed his blood brother by breaking his back?

I know how.

*FACT* You can survive a broken back even in those times.


Hmm?

Care to explain? What did Genghis do?
Vrythramax
brucedes wrote:

Hmm?

Care to explain? What did Genghis do?


It should be YOU explaining since you posted first. I can tell you what I have read, possibly not factual, but when dealing with past history...who really knows for sure?

His (blood) brother was wrapped in a tarp/carpet and Khan had horses trample him to death....he did not die as a result of a broken back, but of a crushed skull.
medievalman26
palavra wrote:
who do you think most evil person in bible?


Well there is no other choice The Morning Star, Lucifer, Satan, or one of many other names for the devil. I mean come on palavra you asked seriously you can't get more evil than Lucifer. Can you?

Now back to the topic. Anyone has the potential for evil, but I still say Vlad the Impaler, Hitler, and Stalin are in top 10 list for it. Hitler because he killed millions of people and tried to, and almost succceeded, wipe out an entire people. Stalin is just another common one but he did do some really bad stuff. Vlad, well I have already posted about him so I won't go into more detail.
bulek
I think that the most evil person was Adolf Hitler. We really can't imagine how cruel he was but older people can tell about his inhumanity and impatient.
brucedes
Vrythramax wrote:
His (blood) brother was wrapped in a tarp/carpet and Khan had horses trample him to death....he did not die as a result of a broken back, but of a crushed skull.


I've not read that anywhere...

But regardless, he only did it because he was asked to. He was willing to accept him back.
rheanna
Quote:
The more I start learning about 9/11 the scarier it gets. I'm starting to think that because of what "Hitler" did to the "Jews" that their going to be taking it out on the "Whites". Think about it. Who are the richest people in America. Think about the heritage aspect?

*Explains the Concentration camps set up in the US and the Crematorium centers set up in Illinois and Hawaii.

*1,000 of Jews didn't go to work on 9/11

*The princess of Saudi lived in NYC and got orders to leave 2 weeks prior to 9/11

* Larry Silverstein is a Jew

*Lowery used to be an Israeli Commando

*50 days when they get those buildings Ironically come down?

*The Israelite Anti terrorist Commander was on Flight 11 "shot in the head" odds 100-1

*Owner of the Federal Bank Reserve (Is a Jew)

**and it gets more juicer then this..all leading back to the heritage of the Jews

Confused Who runs this country??? And this quote just hits it right on the nail. But I don't support Adolf...Take a wild stab at where some of the quotes that President Bush says comes from. S&B

Quote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5095012753871278980&q=9%2F11&hl=en
"TERRORISM is the best POLITICAL WEAPON, for nothing drives people harder than FEAR of a SUDDEN DEATH." Adolf Hitler
xanarulz
I say Adolf Hitler, he was just sick and twisted! Not only did he kill ppl he also performed sick experiments like the death angel (think thats what it was called) were two twins were surgurcally attached by the spine and one was left to die, while the other was dissected alive to see why he didn't die also.
rheanna
Quote:

at the end of that video

Bush "End of civilization"
Bush "Cause to Fascism"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5095012753871278980&q=9%2F11&hl=en


Confused

comes out of his mouth...

**Gulianni next in line for up coming president. Crying or Very sad
ninjakannon
rheanna wrote:
The more I start learning about 9/11 the scarier it gets. I'm starting to think that because of what "Hitler" did to the "Jews" that their going to be taking it out on the "Whites". Think about it. Who are the richest people in America. Think about the heritage aspect?

Where did you get that from? I don't think you'll find anything to back that up at all, anywhere.

rheanna wrote:
*Explains the Concentration camps set up in the US and the Crematorium centers set up in Illinois and Hawaii.
Which concentration camps are these, please provide a link. And how does it explain these? I see no connection.

rheanna wrote:
*1,000 of Jews didn't go to work on 9/11

Hah! No, this isn't true. I'm afraid it's a myth stirred up from something which was reported wrongly.

rheanna wrote:
*The princess of Saudi lived in NYC and got orders to leave 2 weeks prior to 9/11

So what? I'm sure thousands of people left in the 2 weeks prior to the attack.

rheanna wrote:
* Larry Silverstein is a Jew

*Lowery used to be an Israeli Commando

Again, so what? This these points are irrelevant.

rheanna wrote:
*50 days when they get those buildings Ironically come down?

This doesn't make any sense, what are you trying to say with this point?

rheanna wrote:
*The Israelite Anti terrorist Commander was on Flight 11 "shot in the head" odds 100-1

As far as I know, no one was shot. They couldn't have brought guns onto the planes. And didn't.

rheanna wrote:
*Owner of the Federal Bank Reserve (Is a Jew)

This is again, irrelevant.

rheanna wrote:
**and it gets more juicer then this..all leading back to the heritage of the Jews

Erm... I don't see how you get that one. You've taken some unrelated facts which happen to mention Jews and said that this points back to the heritage of Jews. No, that doesn't work, you're not fooling anyone. What is the heritage of Jews exactly anyway?

rheanna wrote:
Confused Who runs this country??? And this quote just hits it right on the nail. But I don't support Adolf...Take a wild stab at where some of the quotes that President Bush says comes from. S&B

Yeah, probably because they're typical things for a president to say. I bet every president in the world has said a direct quote from Adolph Hitler himself. I bet you have. But it doesn't matter, this is irrelevant as it means nothing, you haven't even given any examples.

rheanna wrote:
"TERRORISM is the best POLITICAL WEAPON, for nothing drives people harder than FEAR of a SUDDEN DEATH." Adolf Hitler

Fear is the best method of control, I thought that was a common knowledge. It's just that it's considered immoral to drive people by fear so people in the more economically developed countries don't use it.
rheanna
have to find it again. may have been on video or article I read. and I'll quote it , I forgot. Ah, if your not lazy I'm sure you can find the info. by doing searches. Just do a heritage background on the officials.
HoChiMo
roboguyspacedude wrote:
Hitler was an amazing politician but he is definitely one of the most evil people because of all the people he killed. There have been other genocides but his was huge with almost 6 million jews killed.


wrong. not an amazing politician (because his archievements werent so big after all. for example, the unemployment rate lowered just because he started a war - which in the end destroyed many parts of the country).

by the way: yep, numbers dont do the holocaust justice, because it is BY FAR the biggest crime in worlds history.
Rico
I think we don’t really want to use an affirmation like “Greatest” when it comes to describing someone that’s been responsible for genocide. And my recent history favorite for say “Most Notoriously Evil S.O.B.” must be Lenin for killing a lot of people that didn’t want to worship the government. Second would be Teddy Roosevelt for sitting by and doing nothing about it. But if you’re looking for true evil in the purest form you’ve gotta go for old king Nimrod of Mesopotamia. During his administration they devised a way where there will always be “fresh meat for the grinder” (no disrespect to he’s countless victims). They (the Babylonian “priesthood”) would have a festival at Easter where temple prostitutes would be impregnated by the priests in a mass orgy. This is followed by the slaughter of the 3 month old babies that were born from the previous year’s orgy. The children’s blood was used to color bird eggs red, then the eggs would be given to worshippers who’d use them as a spiritual currency for the acquisition of material goods.
ninjakannon
HoChiMo wrote:
wrong. not an amazing politician (because his archievements werent so big after all. for example, the unemployment rate lowered just because he started a war - which in the end destroyed many parts of the country).

Hah, the fact that the war was, in the end, bad for Germany has nothing to do with how good a politician Hitler was. He managed to become a politician, then the chancellor and then a dictator (missing out all the details). I don't think you fully grasp how clever Hitler was; I don't know whether it was his initial plan to rid Germany of all the Jews but he certainly gave himself the power to do that. He was a very good politician and a good war tactician I believe, at one point Germany's victory in WWII looked inevitable.

HoChiMo wrote:
by the way: yep, numbers dont do the holocaust justice, because it is BY FAR the biggest crime in worlds history.

Yeah, so even though Stalin killed somewhere between 10 and 30 million people, the killing of 6 million is worse? I know there's the issue of racism and all the publicity about how terrible the Holocaust was, but that does by no means make it the worst event of all time.

Rico wrote:
I think we don’t really want to use an affirmation like “Greatest”

It's being used more like the terms 'biggest', or 'worst' here, not as in 'best' at all - many words have more than one meaning/use, including this one.
highlordadmin
George W. Bush.
...
Ok, Hitler. But i said George W. Bush because of the war in Iraq and that, and now "not letting" Iran produce radioactive stuff for power!.. Well, ofc they could be evil and just make atom bombs... But still...

Ahg, i should shut up, i dont realy know what i'm talking about.

I dont realy know of many "evil" persons, Hitler.... Stalingrad (I think... Was that a person or a place?) And...

I suck in history... And i should stop writing this... But i have to, to get more points so i can keep my website.



Hm.. There should be some kind of game system here... You pay a few of those "frih$" and can play a game, where you can win points or more frih money... I think i'll head over to the suggestions forum and suggest that.


EDIT: I forgot! 9/11! That was Bush's fault! (Atleast i think so... Evil little Bush! Go back to your tree! ... I should get some sleep...)

And, all that stuff that makes it hard to belive the americans dident do it thei're self... Wasent it so that some structure in the tower should still stand?
Rengidar
hmm, this is rather interesting.

1.I do agree that Hitler was a great politician. He was sent to prison and was thought of as a criminal yet managed to become dictator not much later.

There are even some people (with whom I agree... partially) that admire some of Hitler's characteristics - no one can deny that he was very determined and did all he could to reach his goal - even if the goal was evil. It was not easy to stand against all world but he tried. Fortunately, he did not succeed.

2.I think that 6 million Jews may be the biggest genocide in the history of world but I agree that Stalin killed more people. Killed or deported to Sibiria (which is not better).

3.As for the conclusion, I do not think one most evil person can be named. My vote would go for Hitler and Stalin, though.
nopaniers
The most evil leader in the last century has to be Hitler. Starting wars and gassing Jews is not a good look. Stalin comes in second with deportations to Siberia.

I suspect that when people look back at us in future centuries, they're going to remember us as communities, rather than as individuals - so we will all take the cake for using all the earth's resources and keeping the majority of the world's population in poverty.
Mr_CEO
Hitler was a very evil man. He could have taken over the whole planet if he wanted to, but greed got the best of him and he failed to do this.

During the 1940s the Germans were attacking on two fronts, Britain and Russia. They had air fights in Britain and the Germans were being very victorious as the Britains lost pilots and started to lose defense. It was at this time that Hitler stopped the fighting and turned his attention towards Russia. The biggest country, if he were to take it over, would become a great accomplishment for himself. He sent his troops to invade Russia. The Russians, who were used to the extreme winters, destroyed everything in their path as they retreated. The Germans, who weren't used to the cold, only wearing thin German uniforms, quickly froze and starved to death due to their surroundings being destroyed.

The Germans lost a lot of men due to this and had to retreat. In this time Britain gained up its forces again and made one final last attack with Russia. This brought down the Germans and the rule of Hitler.

But I'm sure you already knew that. Shocked
budiman
The most evil person maybe Hitler. He use human being as experiment specimen
pirki
I think there are too many, that you can say who is the most evil person of them.

But Hitler and Stalin are definitely on "leading positions" in this category
gangsterr
got to be ghengis khan, killed 30 million in north china alone. Plus all of the places he attacked.
ninjakannon
Most people - if not everyone – have so far suggested a person, or people, who have killed. The current measure of evilness appears indeed to be the number of people that a person killed or had killed, directly or indirectly.

What I want to pose now is this: is killing a person the most evil thing you can do to them? I would say that it is not, of course here we are not talking about special cases when it is compassionate and merciful to do so (for example, killing someone with a terminal illness, so long as they want to die (euthanasia)). In my opinion physical torture where death is not ultimately expected is the worst you can do to a person.

So is there anyone who tortured (or had tortured) a large enough number of people to count as being more evil than the people so far suggested? If, of course, you agree that physical torture is worse than murder.
et-configs
Adolf Hitler was a very very smart man. But he used his knowledge for horrible evils instead of good for the world..


Concentration camps for using Jews as a scapegoat is as in-humane as you can get.. He is an awful person who I hope is burning in hell for eternity for what he has done.

Wink
gangsterr
ninjakannon wrote:
Most people - if not everyone – have so far suggested a person, or people, who have killed. The current measure of evilness appears indeed to be the number of people that a person killed or had killed, directly or indirectly.

What I want to pose now is this: is killing a person the most evil thing you can do to them? I would say that it is not, of course here we are not talking about special cases when it is compassionate and merciful to do so (for example, killing someone with a terminal illness, so long as they want to die (euthanasia)). In my opinion physical torture where death is not ultimately expected is the worst you can do to a person.

So is there anyone who tortured (or had tortured) a large enough number of people to count as being more evil than the people so far suggested? If, of course, you agree that physical torture is worse than murder.


i have to agree with that.
simp
Most evil? Has to be Pol Pot. Close runner-up: Josef Stalin.
Afaceinthematrix
I liked reading about Stalin. Joseph Stalin was an interesting person.
hiquality
From my opinion ... Ivan the Terrible is the most evil person... Vlad the Impaler wasn't that evil... during his reign no one dared to pick up a bag of gold which they found in the middle of the road (probably dropped by someone ) because that meant stealing... and stealing meant being impaled... so there weren't to many thieves then.[/code]
indianinworld
It is none other than me

Keep smiling

_________________
as alwayZz - Cheers and Cherish
indianinworld
Visit me @ : http://www.sathish.frih.net
Donutey
Richard Nixon, because of all the crazy stuff he said in day to day business, all while knowingly being audio taped.
gabbe90
I should say that Hitler is the most evil guy in the history, but there are many people in the history who have comitted worse things and killed mor people than Hitler. I say Hitler because he is the guy i have heard and reed about most of all this evl guys. I think hitler was a quite nice and cozy man if you knew him Wink Laughing
gandalfthegrey
I watched an interesting documentary on PBS with author Niall Ferguson a few weeks ago.

Niall showed how the western powers, the Soviet Union and China contributed to causing more deaths during the cold war using secondary theatres of war (places like Central America, Africa, South-East Asia, Central Asia, South America) than was caused in World War one or World War two.

Anyone is a such a position of power to cause such violence can be considered a monster. Our leaders shouldn't be able hide under the guise of democracy or that their intentions were well intended.
ninjakannon
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Our leaders shouldn't be able hide under the guise of democracy or that their intentions were well intended.

No one should, and luckily democracy is the best tool we have for uncovering wrongdoers and bringing justice.

However, it may be true that more often than not actions are well intended. Hitler may have intended good - only his good was not the same as many other people's good. Hiding behind good intentions isn't hiding but hoping, for you can only hide so long as people agree with you. And people will only agree with you if what you did was in some way acceptable or aimed towards what is right.
deanhills
ninjakannon wrote:
However, it may be true that more often than not actions are well intended. Hitler may have intended good - only his good was not the same as many other people's good. Hiding behind good intentions isn't hiding but hoping, for you can only hide so long as people agree with you. And people will only agree with you if what you did was in some way acceptable or aimed towards what is right.


I totally agree with this statement. As predominantly Westerners our education is limited to Western battles and our own interpretations of the battles in China and Russia. Possibly also in Russia and China information and education at schools are indoctrinated, so we have missed out on a lot of evil doing as very little freedom of press alowed and lots of fear of prosecution. I think Stalin has been much more evil than Hitler could have dreamed off. He was a genuine tyrant. Hitler was a megalomaniac supported by millions of German people (either spontaneously or by virtue of "following orders") who supported him in his evil commands and deeds.
Moshkin_Khan
The thing is with Hitler, how much of it was his choice, He had people all around him trying to sway him to do different things, Himmler was one of the main people in the extermination of the jews, Hitler was actually quite lazy and spent lots of his days in bed watching movies. He delegated LOTS of his tasks to other people, so if they were unpopular, he could blame that person and fire / kill them.
Although he knew it was happening, He may not have played the biggest part in them.
However he was very smart and sly at getting power.

Vlad the impaler was horrible, I've read of stories that he cooked babys and made the mother of the child eat them. How disgustingly horrible. I've not heard of the others mentioned but I'll read up on them.

It all depends on how your classing them, I would say the sickest acts would be the most evil. Because the numbers can cause in difference, I can say I've had 500 people killed, as I havent commited the act myself, It wont effect me as much as it would have if I had been there. So on some level, you can argue murderers like Jack the Ripper are most evil as they are there in the situation committing a horrible act and knowing full well they are.
themarine
Well, I’d say that since he won the election in 1860 without even campaigning in the South (I believe he may have won one or two counties in all of the southern states) and the fact that seven states seceded from the union because of his election speaks to the notion that he wasn’t that popular in 1860.

Lincoln was the first Republican president, an anti-slavery party founded in 1854. Many Southerners perceieved his election, accomplished by winning only the North, a region to which the South already had grievances, as a threat to their way of life and independence.

Lincoln is my favorite president, but during the war he was arguably a tyrant, certainly no president has ever wielded more power in the history of the United States! I believe that he had to be so in order to restore the union, but Americans in this century would probably tie the hands of any president who attempted such draconian measures today. Many people scream about President Bush trampling the U.S. Constitution, but compared to Lincoln, President Bush is as liberal as they come with regard to civil liberties and constitutional protections. Here are some examples of Lincoln’s actions during the War Between the States:


Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus – As Yale professor Joshua Kleinfeld said, “when Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, he clothed himself with more power then any individual had possessed in America before, or since.” (BTW, Franklin Roosevelt used this precedent to suspend the writ and imprison Japanese-Americans during World War II.)

Declared Martial Law – Went so far as to arrest people for protesting the war and shutting down anti-war newspapers. And since the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended, there was nothing they could do about it.

Had Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio (an outspoken political opponent) taken into custody by armed soldiers in the middle of the night, thrown in a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason because of a speech he gave in the House of Representatives, and was promptly deported.

Issued an arrest warrant for Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney after Taney issued an opinion that only congress could suspend habeas corpus.

His assassination also speaks to his unpopularity, in no small part due to his perceived tyranny. Remember, his assassination was part of a wider conspiracy (born out of the war, to be sure) and carried out by the second-most photographed man of the era (second only to Lincoln himself). That assassination would be akin to Harrison Ford walking up to a president today and killing him.

Respectfully,
deanhills
Stalin was Evil. He had a persecution complex. If someone made war against Russia, all they had to do were to start a rumour amongst his confidantes that his generals were plotting against him, and that way the West could sort out most of his leadership. Seriously though, this guy killed millions of people, trusted nobody. He lived by the sword. People around him were living in fear all the time. I think he was worse than Hitler. Difference was that Hitler and the Germans were more careful with documenting all their attrocities than Russia had been. So Russia could hide an enormous percentage of all its sins, some of which have question marks behind them to this day.
pho3nixsky
'John Howard'

Only Aussies would know Wink
{name here}
Mao Tsetung's "Great Leap Forward" caused a massive famine and death arguably on the scale of Stalin, though Stalin also has numerous great purges, the Holodomor, and all those silenced by his secret police on his side.

Though they aren't a single person, the Spanish Conquistadors and the colonization of the Americas (not just by Spain, but by Europeans in general), caused terrible loss and plague to native peoples. If not the plundering and loss of culture which counts, then at least the smallpox.
Moonspider
{name here} wrote:
Though they aren't a single person, the Spanish Conquistadors and the colonization of the Americas (not just by Spain, but by Europeans in general), caused terrible loss and plague to native peoples. If not the plundering and loss of culture which counts, then at least the smallpox.


Are you seriously calling all Europeans evil because of the colonization of the Americas?

Respectfully,
M
Dark_Jedi06
I'd say H. H. Holmes is a pretty unique and astounding evil person, not a dictator or political figure but a prolific serial killer.

For one man he committed many, many murders on an obscenely grotesque level. The exact number of his victims can only be left to speculation, with some estimates at 230 individuals. However I guess it depends on the classification of "greatest"; sickest, most twisted, most successful? His kill ratio is probably on-par with the Third Reich...
Noremac
This isn't that historic, but I think Richard Kuklinski compares to the likes of even hitler, I mean, this guy murdered brutally and tortured under the radar over 300 people. Now hitler was RESPONSIBLE for one of histories greatest disasters and nothing can change that and Im not taking anything away but this guy personally murdered over 300 people brutally and not towards any greater end, generally just out of bloodlust or rage. Thats a different kind of evil.
themarine
Hitler was a very smart man. He could have taken over the whole planet if he wanted to, but greed got the best of him and he failed to do this.

During the mid 1940s the Germans were attacking on two fronts, Britain and Russia. They had air fights in Britain and the Germans were being very victorious as the Britains lost pilots and started to lose defense. It was at this time that Hitler stopped the fighting and turned his attention towards Russia. The biggest country, if he were to take it over, would become a great accomplishment for himself. He sent his troops to invade Russia. The Russians, who were used to the extreme winters, destroyed everything in their path as they retreated. The Germans, who weren't used to the cold, only wearing thin German uniforms, quickly froze and starved to death due to their surroundings being destroyed.

The Germans lost a lot of men due to this and had to retreat. In this time Britain gained up its forces again and made one final last attack with Russia. This brought down the Germans and the rule of Hitler.

PS: I may have skipped over a few major events, or minor events. This is just a quick story telling what happened.
deanhills
themarine wrote:
Hitler was a very smart man. He could have taken over the whole planet if he wanted to, but greed got the best of him and he failed to do this.
He was a charismatic leader with appeal to the masses, a very good strategist, but not a smart man. Since he was so much into his own ego he failed to listen to the counsel of his military advisors. His objectivity was blurred by his ego and caused him to make big mistakes that cost him the war. His mistake was not only to enter Russia on the eve of a Winter, but he was also busy with the Chechslovakia and trying to conquer the UK and stay on top of Europe at the same time, he spread himself too thin and wide, and he deviated from his course of action when he entered Russia against the advice of his Generals. Another mistake was his alliance with Italy. Perhaps he overestimated their military strength and training.

He was a very strong character and stubborn, and I doubt that he could be "swayed" by anyone else. Closest they could get to that is to feed him wrong information. Since he did not have a trusting nature, that did not always work out for those who tried to deceive him.
daefommicc
as far as i know Alister Crowley is dubbed the most evil person ever. his books r banned in india (mostly on occult and satanism) and almost elsewhere in the world. when he was a kid he mocked jesus christ by killing a frog n crucifying him on his self made crucifix.
manlear
ZealousZ wrote:
why is it that jews are always the target?

my nominees (that havent been mentioned yet):
Tomas de Torquemada - discriminator against jews in 15th century
L. Ron Hubbard -founder of scientology


Hehe i agree with L. Ron Hubbard
Omega-hotelomega
Michael Grade..... Just because.... Mad
Xanatos
daefommicc wrote:
as far as i know Alister Crowley is dubbed the most evil person ever. his books r banned in india (mostly on occult and satanism) and almost elsewhere in the world. when he was a kid he mocked jesus christ by killing a frog n crucifying him on his self made crucifix.


And why does this make him the most evil person in the world?
supernova1987a
almost everybody, who torture animals and eat them! Laughing
all selfish people are the greatest evils that exist on earth. they should use their intelligence in good of all not just themselves. grrrr Laughing lol
ninjakannon
supernova1987a wrote:
almost everybody, who torture animals and eat them! Laughing
all selfish people are the greatest evils that exist on earth. they should use their intelligence in good of all not just themselves. grrrr Laughing lol

This thread is useless without justifications. You are a prime example. Further, you could not justify yourself. I would suggest that you didn't even post on topic because you are not trying to truly answer the question asked. Got a more serious answer?
BinahZ
"Evil" is a human attribute that is a choice. (We choose to choose that path)
Hitler was atrocious and btw the 6 million number was just the Jews many more millions were killed I believe the total estimate of non combative deaths that were executions is approx. 12 million.

The degree of ones evil is subjective I think, we all have alliances and cultures that may or may not have been affected by the evils of various people which shade our perspective on the matter.

I don't think there is any denial that most all of the people mentioned in this post were horrible people who brought death and destruction to the world.
ninjakannon
BinahZ, you put that very well and I completely agree with you.

I would add that I have come to feel that killing 20 million people is just as evil as killing 10 million people. Although, each individual act of killing is just as evil as every other.

The first time you choose to have someone killed you certainly become more evil than you were before - you have chosen to perform a morally wrong action. If you now kill a second person you again are more evil than before because you have not seen the error in your ways (amongst other things). However, if you continue killing people, there comes a point when you are no more evil, I suggest. While you are still choosing to perform a terrible action the choice is 'smaller'; what you are doing is becoming more of a continuation of your ways than a choice. I would also suggest that there is the new evil of not 'choosing' to change your ways.

Furthermore, if someone performs an evil action but they themselves do not see it as evil then I would say that the person is not evil while the action still is.


So this adds a new angle to this debate, unless I am wrong. What are your thoughts?
Kopernikus
That´s my beef I always had with Shakespeares [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_(play)]Richard III[/url]...

"I am determined to prove a villain"

Nobody is the villain in his own life´s play! Even Hitler saw himself as the saviour of Germany, was kind to dogs and a vegetarian.

Where´s the difference between being ruthless and being evil? depends only wether your are on the receiving or the giving end... Rolling Eyes
ninjakannon
Kopernikus wrote:
Nobody is the villain in his own life´s play!

Actually, you can be. I don't even need to argue this point.

Kopernikus wrote:
Even Hitler saw himself as the saviour of Germany, was kind to dogs and a vegetarian.

Yes, he did (although your points about kindness to dogs and vegetarianism don't help your argument). Many 'bad' actions are justified or considered 'good' from the start by the people who take them.

What you say leads to an interesting point that I already raised. If someone's actions are evil but the person performing those actions believes them to be good, is the person evil? I would say not. However, that is not a reason not to stop them, nor necessarily a reason not to punish them.


Kopernikus wrote:
Where´s the difference between being ruthless and being evil? depends only wether your are on the receiving or the giving end... Rolling Eyes

No, this not true. While it is true that you may see an action differently if you are carrying it out from if you are at the receiving end of it, the action itself is no different. Evil actions are evil, ruthless actions are ruthless and hence some actions can be both evil and ruthless.
I wouldn't try to find a difference between these in the way you do. My reason is this: it's not that there is some point at which your level of ruthlessness becomes evil; ruthlessness and evil are properties that we can assign to an action separately of each other.


I would appreciate it if you would justify your statements, Kopernikus.
Nero
It would probably be Hitler for me. Some of the things he did was truly horrible.
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was the ruler of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state from 1934 to 1945.

A decorated veteran of World War I, Hitler joined the Nazi Party in 1920 and became its leader in 1921. Following his imprisonment after a failed coup in 1923, he gained support by promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. He was appointed chancellor in 1933, and quickly established and made reality his vision of a totalitarian, autocratic, single party, national socialist dictatorship. Hitler pursued a foreign policy with the declared goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space") for Germany, directing the resources of the state toward this goal. His rebuilt Wehrmacht invaded Poland in 1939, leading to the outbreak of World War II in Europe.

Within three years, Germany and the Axis powers occupied most of Europe and a part of northern Africa, East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific Ocean. However, the Allies gained the upper hand from 1942 onward and in 1945 Allied armies invaded Germany from all sides. His forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians including the genocide of an estimated six million Jews, known as the Holocaust.

During the final days of the war in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress Eva Braun. Less than two days later, the two committed suicide.
Kopernikus
ninjakannon wrote:
Kopernikus wrote:
Nobody is the villain in his own life´s play!

Actually, you can be. I don't even need to argue this point.

Kopernikus wrote:
Even Hitler saw himself as the saviour of Germany, was kind to dogs and a vegetarian.

Yes, he did (although your points about kindness to dogs and vegetarianism don't help your argument). Many 'bad' actions are justified or considered 'good' from the start by the people who take them.

What you say leads to an interesting point that I already raised. If someone's actions are evil but the person performing those actions believes them to be good, is the person evil? I would say not. However, that is not a reason not to stop them, nor necessarily a reason not to punish them.


Kopernikus wrote:
Where´s the difference between being ruthless and being evil? depends only wether your are on the receiving or the giving end... Rolling Eyes

No, this not true. While it is true that you may see an action differently if you are carrying it out from if you are at the receiving end of it, the action itself is no different. Evil actions are evil, ruthless actions are ruthless and hence some actions can be both evil and ruthless.
I wouldn't try to find a difference between these in the way you do. My reason is this: it's not that there is some point at which your level of ruthlessness becomes evil; ruthlessness and evil are properties that we can assign to an action separately of each other.


I would appreciate it if you would justify your statements, Kopernikus.


I repeat: nobody thinks of himself as the villain. even the most base acts are justified by higher reasons or indifference to the suffering of others. NO ONE says, I´m going to do something really evil today! <har har har>

i agree, that ruthlessness and evil are two independent categories, which we have a *tendency* to apply in a mutually exclusive manner. my point is, that the majority may well see some action as the ruthless cutting down of no longer justified rights, while the minority, who´s rights are restricted may well think of this as evil. Examples are the french revolution and the miners strike in the UK.
even in court of laws, you have to weigh the importance of the rights of the opponents against each other and decide which rights you have to violate, which is in my book *evil*.

But for the smooth function of our societies, we have a kind of agreement *what* is evil and what not. Liberty can not be without *some* restrictions, the freedom to wave your fist ends where my face starts. And *yes* I think, that even when somebody thinks he is doing right, there are some actions, which should be *always* considered bad. The universal declaration of human rights is a good starting point on that.

I don´t have anything against regimes or governments who are restrictive to their population, as long as they allow a) the possibility for anyone who doesn´t want to live that way to leave and b) to change the society by a sufficient majority of the governed. I hate regimes, who restrict people "for their own good"
ninjakannon
Kopernikus wrote:
I repeat: nobody thinks of himself as the villain. even the most base acts are justified by higher reasons or indifference to the suffering of others. NO ONE says, I´m going to do something really evil today! <har har har>

i agree, that ruthlessness and evil are two independent categories, which we have a *tendency* to apply in a mutually exclusive manner. my point is, that the majority may well see some action as the ruthless cutting down of no longer justified rights, while the minority, who´s rights are restricted may well think of this as evil. Examples are the french revolution and the miners strike in the UK.
even in court of laws, you have to weigh the importance of the rights of the opponents against each other and decide which rights you have to violate, which is in my book *evil*.

But for the smooth function of our societies, we have a kind of agreement *what* is evil and what not. Liberty can not be without *some* restrictions, the freedom to wave your fist ends where my face starts. And *yes* I think, that even when somebody thinks he is doing right, there are some actions, which should be *always* considered bad. The universal declaration of human rights is a good starting point on that.

I don´t have anything against regimes or governments who are restrictive to their population, as long as they allow a) the possibility for anyone who doesn´t want to live that way to leave and b) to change the society by a sufficient majority of the governed. I hate regimes, who restrict people "for their own good"

You put that very eloquently, Kopernikus. Smile

I still disagree on your first point: I am certain that some people will think of themselves as the villain. If today I was evicted from my house and had to live on the streets with no money or possessions other than the clothes I stood in I may be forced to steal. So let's say I steal some food; I would consider this wrong but feel that I was forced to by my situation. So yes, I have justified my action yet at the same time I would consider it wrong. I would consider myself to be the villain of the situation.

I understand and agree with what you say on the weighing up of the rights of the majority and the minority, although I'm not sure this is evil. These situations will occur in a democratic society and are inevitable, unfortunately. I'm not sure whether there is a better way to deal with them.

Extending your suggestion that in a society there is "a kind of agreement *what* is evil and what is not", I think that to a certain extent culture shapes a society's views on what is good and what is evil (amongst other things). Which is one reason I am worried by governments who attempt to socially engineer. Also, it is important that people are brought up in an environment with the 'proper' values. Although this is an ideal, I feel it should be strived for.

It would be a terrible thing to be truly free. Liberty must be restricted and this is good. But to come up with the right restrictions for some 'things' is no easy feat.
[FuN]goku
Eh, gonna have to say Mao.
deanhills
[FuN]goku wrote:
Eh, gonna have to say Mao.
Agreed. He was responsible for the killing of millions of people. Death and destruction. He and Stalin were on the same page, except perhaps Mao took more personal risk than Stalin ever did. Mao was out in the country marching with his people.
Kopernikus
ninjakannon wrote:
Kopernikus wrote:
I repeat: nobody thinks of himself as the villain. even the most base acts are justified by higher reasons or indifference to the suffering of others. NO ONE says, I´m going to do something really evil today! <har har har>

i agree, that ruthlessness and evil are two independent categories, which we have a *tendency* to apply in a mutually exclusive manner. my point is, that the majority may well see some action as the ruthless cutting down of no longer justified rights, while the minority, who´s rights are restricted may well think of this as evil. Examples are the french revolution and the miners strike in the UK.
even in court of laws, you have to weigh the importance of the rights of the opponents against each other and decide which rights you have to violate, which is in my book *evil*.

But for the smooth function of our societies, we have a kind of agreement *what* is evil and what not. Liberty can not be without *some* restrictions, the freedom to wave your fist ends where my face starts. And *yes* I think, that even when somebody thinks he is doing right, there are some actions, which should be *always* considered bad. The universal declaration of human rights is a good starting point on that.

I don´t have anything against regimes or governments who are restrictive to their population, as long as they allow a) the possibility for anyone who doesn´t want to live that way to leave and b) to change the society by a sufficient majority of the governed. I hate regimes, who restrict people "for their own good"

You put that very eloquently, Kopernikus. Smile

I still disagree on your first point: I am certain that some people will think of themselves as the villain. If today I was evicted from my house and had to live on the streets with no money or possessions other than the clothes I stood in I may be forced to steal. So let's say I steal some food; I would consider this wrong but feel that I was forced to by my situation. So yes, I have justified my action yet at the same time I would consider it wrong. I would consider myself to be the villain of the situation.

I understand and agree with what you say on the weighing up of the rights of the majority and the minority, although I'm not sure this is evil. These situations will occur in a democratic society and are inevitable, unfortunately. I'm not sure whether there is a better way to deal with them.

Extending your suggestion that in a society there is "a kind of agreement *what* is evil and what is not", I think that to a certain extent culture shapes a society's views on what is good and what is evil (amongst other things). Which is one reason I am worried by governments who attempt to socially engineer. Also, it is important that people are brought up in an environment with the 'proper' values. Although this is an ideal, I feel it should be strived for.

It would be a terrible thing to be truly free. Liberty must be restricted and this is good. But to come up with the right restrictions for some 'things' is no easy feat.


Re: stealing on the streets
I think you have a point there. But although you would consider it wrong, you also would think that it wasn´t really your responsibility. Circumstances have forced you into this, the society, etc. So you wouldn´t feel a villain you would feel a victim

Re: majority against minority
I didn´t mean to say that majority desiscions, that hurt a minority are evil per se. But that they can be perceived as evil by the minority. Which is, by the way, in my eyes, the measure of a mature society, that you are able to agree to things, that benefit the the whole, but have a certain amount of disadvantages for you.

Re: social engeneering
Well, I think that, thank god, we don´t have the knowledge and experience, to really steer a society in a certain direction, especially in a democracy. The terms of office are too short, to do much harm in this direction. Social Values are still mostly the responsibility of parents, and nobody else. We are in some way, what our parents made us. (intentionally and unintentionally!).
To go back to the original thread: I don´t think that Hitler had no choice, but to be a twisted man, on the other hand, I think, that some of his delusional views were definitely inherited from his family. Of course you could argue for hours, if his monomanic quest for approval and social rewards was genetic or learned... Confused

Re: liberty
Again, I agree, boundless liberty isn´t. Wink
It´s one of the paradoxa of life, that sometimes the most extreme form of a quality is its exact opposite. I remember when I was fencing, that when you were starting, as it´s fairly common, with the foil, you have to learn two rules: right of way, meaning only the attacker can score and the area where a hit is valid, which in foil is just the torso. After that you learn epee, which doesn´t have those restrictions! paradise! i can hit wherever, whenever I want and score... But suddenly you realize, that the same´s true for your opponent, so you definitely don´t want to get too close to him, meaning the only parts of him available to hit for you are his hands and the front leg, pretty small targets, much more difficult and faster moving than the torso. So the theoretical absolute freedom of epee just restricts your practical freedom much more, than the theoretical rigidity of foil. (And makes Epee sooooo boring Twisted Evil )
clnhshome
vanille wrote:
I liked reading about Hitler. Not that I support the fellow but it's interesting to read on the many ways he tortured, terrified, and killed civilians.

well our teacher discussed about this person and
he said that any foreiners who enter his country and
seen by hitler, will be shot immediately.... O.O
and my teacher said that after hitlers death
almost all of the german were happy and celebrating ^^

believe me you dont wanna see him alive,
or he'll shot you w/ a pistol...
maaaaan thats scary,

I think hes not evil,
He's just very Strict Wink
Kopernikus
Quote:

well our teacher discussed about this person and
he said that any foreiners who enter his country and
seen by hitler, will be shot immediately.... O.O

well, if you are at war with the foreigners, than that only makes sense...

Quote:

and my teacher said that after hitlers death
almost all of the german were happy and celebrating ^^

believe me, they were too busy to survive... celebrating wasn´t quite the foremost thing on their minds...
pscompanies
hitler wasn't overt.

Nobody knew he was performing genocide on the jews, they just thought they were getting "moved".

As with bush, we can't prove he's killed anyone yet, and he's hardly a "historical figure" just yet, is he?
HalfBloodPrince
The most evil leader is the leader that loses...history is written by the winners after all. Stalin, Mao, and especially Hitler's wrongdoings have been grossly exaggerated by the winners who wrote the history for that time period. Had they won, they would be the gracious do-gooders and people like FDR and Churchill would be made out as the murderous ones Rolling Eyes
JessieF
bogger wrote:
Vlad the impaler was romanian
Eh, I think we should define evil:

Quote:
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.


Therefore, I think that if a person thinks he is right in killing people, he isn't evil, just stupid, because he isn't morally wrong

Along those lines, stalin wasn't evil, paranoia
Hitler was stupid


Then you'd have to define what is morally bad or wrong. So, can everyone posting here agree that killing others is morally bad or wrong, and therefore evil? Does it matter for what reason a person kills? Insanity, stupidity? Doesn't hate cause more murders than "evil"?
Jamestf347
Personally Stalin takes the cake...

Quote:
I'm not sure how many people he killed, but I know it was a lot - as many as that though? Where did you find that out?

If it wasn't for Stalin I wouldn't be posting this message... Why? Because he had many of my family, on my mother's father's side killed. They lived in Latvia, behind the Iron Curtain so the world didn't hear about the hell people had to go through there, my mum's father came over the UK before the Second World War and couldn't return after the outbreak of war. So I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Hitler, either.


He killed so many more than hitler... around 48million more to be exact.


Tip of the day: to quote another user or an external source use quote tags like this:
Code:
[quote="source"]copied text goes here[/quote]
ninjakannon
JessieF wrote:
Then you'd have to define what is morally bad or wrong. So, can everyone posting here agree that killing others is morally bad or wrong, and therefore evil?

This problem is an old and much debated one. There is no clear answer as to whether certain actions are morally wrong. Indeed, there is much disagreement on whether morals are the same for everyone. See absolute and relative ethic value as well as [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)]absolute[/url] philosophical value.

Interestingly, you appear to assume that something that if killing is morally wrong it must be evil. But is this so? Can something be morally wrong but not evil?


EDIT: That second link won't urlify, the brackets appear to be stopping it.
Bikerman
Quote:
around 48million more to be exact.

Rolling Eyes
And where does that figure come from? The point is that you will never know how many died in the gulags because there are no records for many, and no surviving relatives or people who knew them.
Do you also include those who died from starvation? Those who died of natural causes ?
I have seen figures from 5 million to about 25 million. The evidence for a figure above 50 million seems to me to be an integer number between 0 and 1 that does not divide by itself...
deanhills
Technically, Hitler did not kill anyone. He got everyone else to do the killing for him. They did it most willingly and quite a large number did it passionately as well. For example, although Adolf Hitler held the ultimate responsibility for what became the Holocaust, it was Heinrich Himmler who essentially laid the plans and devised the schemes that led to the killings of six million Jews.

Would probably be an interesting statistical exercise to assess how many people were responsible for killing others in Hitler's name.
adri
The most evil man in history... *sarcastic* hmm that should be Kaïn. He killed 1/4 of humanity.

Kain was the son of Adam and Eve and he killed his brother.
*sarcastic*
deanhills
adri wrote:
The most evil man in history... *sarcastic* hmm that should be Kaïn. He killed 1/4 of humanity.

Kain was the son of Adam and Eve and he killed his brother.
*sarcastic*
Very original, very good. 10 out of 10. Laughing

Also, the killing never stopped after that. I always wonder where that compulsion to take the life of another person comes from. Probably in our genes, survival of the fittest?
ninjakannon
deanhills wrote:
I always wonder where that compulsion to take the life of another person comes from. Probably in our genes, survival of the fittest?

I would have thought it would be more of an emotional thing. But, of course, this is influenced by genes, culture and upbringing. And we're back to the nature-nurture debate, woohoo.
kovok
I liked reading and watching about Stalin and Hitler.
HoytJolly
I also like Vlad the Impaler. Not just because he spiked his his enemies, but also because he was adored by his subjects. They loved him because of the terribly things that he did to their mutual foes. His actions gained him international notoriety (or infamy) and even saved his county a few times. You could say that he was the only mad man in the castle on the hill who had the angry mob of peasants fighting on his side.
HalfBloodPrince
HoytJolly wrote:
You could say that he was the only mad man in the castle on the hill who had the angry mob of peasants fighting on his side.

This doesn't reflect my views, but the following just fit too well with what you said to not be posted Smile

ronbarak
vanille wrote:
I liked reading about Hitler. Not that I support the fellow but it's interesting to read on the many ways he tortured, terrified, and killed civilians.


I think the epitome of a Great Evil Person (at least to his enemies) is Genghis Khan: he started from virtually nothing, united warring tribes of a rather insignificant nation into one of the great military forces Earth has ever seen and went on to create the greatest contiguous land empire ever. He brought terror wherever he sent his armies, and when his enemies would not submit, he'd annihilate whole cities and build great pyramids out of human skulls.
sudipbanerjee
Greatest Evil man: obviously Hitler. In a single hand he almost take control over whole world.
AsadAnsari
Greatest man Ever killed most was Osama Bin Laden..

He didn't Killed anyone in 9-11 Incident but he became the reason for Muslim getting killed from that Day till yet because he accepted that, that he were behind that, and so on there many reason and leaders dramatically being created after his Dramatic death.


But i am sure we will not be seeing any record breaker as Osama ..
But I imagine how come a warrior and terrorist like him got killed in Home and in Army restricted area of a Country which is Aly of NATO UNO And America. !!
How no one knew that he is Osama even those in neighbors those have met that person who was living in that house where Osama was living from two years and got Died? ( As Media Showed )
And why the hell he didn't get the chance to get death like Saddam ..

Well God Bless You US Gov. You done this for US.
God Bless You BUSH.
God Bless You OBSAMA..javascript:emoticon('Laughing')

You have blessed The Muslim Nation Worldwide with Your Love and Sympathy ..
God Bless You people of America who loves to live happily and sleep peacefully while their army is less on their border but mostly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Arab and Pakistan. Finding the Oil Catching the Terrorists Like Osama.
God Bless You American Gov ..
For Always keeping your Army men busy and upto something.. To catch a Boogeyman.


Thank You For reading it till the End.
-------------------------------------------------

The Holy Quran You know is the same book of orders You know as Gospel and Torah which are totally changed now and You call it Bible today. A bit not comparable to a single line of Quran.

Laughing
pravojednostavno
Greatest Evil man these days: Putin!
LxGoodies
What about Saloth Sar, alias Pol Pot ..
Under his 4 year regime, Cambodia was brought down to the ground. Cities were emptied. All intellectuals (=people wearing glasses, according to the Khmer) were killed. All believers were killed. Every single book that could be found was burned. Political opponents and their family were tortured and impaled. Cambodia never recovered. Total death count amounts to 2.5 to 3 milllion people, about 21% of the countries population.
Related topics
"We Hate Aliens" Campaign [ENDED]
Do you like bush? Or do you hate bush?
Do you hate xmas?
Can anyone prove God loves you?
Better World
Rock and Roll
A debate of religion, science, and more
How to not get banned.
The Anti-Christ
The Middle East Conflict
What is "good"?
Good vs. Evil--A Philosophical Question...
Best US President
"How to Persuade an Atheist to Become Christian"
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.