Most Evil Human In History Aside From the Big Two
- Thread starter Blatherscythe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
King Leopold II. He took over the Congo for his own exploits. He ordered his men to cut off the hands of dead rebels, but instead they cut the hands off of the living to meet a high quota. They even did it to children. There was a genocide of the population. Shit like that which were crimes against humanity. The man was a sick son of a *****. And for what? A bunch of rubber and other raw materials.
Lol, I suppose he didn't like the insults to Dear Leader. I guess someone still loves that old mass-murdering, ugly, brain-damaged syphilitic psycho after all this time.mechanixis said:
@Cowboy - Oooh, that's a good one. Kinda forgot about that. There's also the massive groupthink that afflicted Rwanda, but I'm not sure you can pin that on any one guy.
Plus there's the folks responsible for the Armenian Genocide. But still, I'm goin with Mao.
PissOffRoth said:
Well, yes and no.
I'm a Dubbya supporter and will be one of the first people to tell you that I think he's pretty evil. He's far from being stupid, or misguided however.
See, the thing is that George and Dick decided to turn "The War On Terror" into their personal cash farm. One of the whole problems is that they have been using the entire war as a way of justifying rebuilding projects to "win the peace", so they could hand the projects off to their buddies in exchange for kickbacks. Basically this went from a war into a giant money making venture.
Most of the criticisms of their leadership aren't valid. Liberals are dead wrong about the war, killing people, and most of the so called "big issues", all of that has been fully justified. Groups like Blackwater and other Private Mercenary Contractors and security firms have been generally right in what they have done, even if it offends the inner child of liberals and those who are against the war to begin with. The issue with them has mostly been that these guys are buddies of Dick, and he pretty much gave them a contract for that reason, and for promised returns, rather than putting the contract up on the open market with good faith.
Basically the war got de-railed due to politics, I'm a huge supporter of the idea of the war, and going to Iraq and Afghanistan. My problem with it is that the Dubbya administration didn't stick to their guns and do what needed to be done, and then once they let their opponents defang the entire thing, did everything they could to keep it running so they could make money off of it.
See, I'm one of those who will tell you there is no good or evil in a war, only us or them. But understand that the way I feel the war should have been fought winds up costing a ton of money and doesn't put any profit into anyone's hands in paticular. There are probably back messages with my full opinion on how this should be dealt with if your curious. The thing is that doing it "right" costs a ton of munitions (which is what they are there for) but none of that expense finds it's way into the pockets of the politicians themselves. So once the option was off the table, the war has continued the way it has purely for the sake of profiteering.
Basically I don't bat an eye over the idea of killing millions upon millions of people in a situation like this. But when your talking about keeping a war going just to make money that doesn't even benefit the national economy, that's something else. All these soldiers we have down there are people who are supposed to serve the nation, not help to maintain the climate needed for Dubbya and Dick to make money. I'm also pretty impartial to killing people, but all of this moral minefield about torture and the excesses of the US in police actions are things I find ultimatly idiotic because that's only going on because of the cash grab we're talking about. If I was running the show it would have been in and out. Sure we'd be erasing a lot of nations from the map, and people would be screaming about mass murder for the next several centuries especially since the guys we were targeting would have no chance, but there wouldn't have been much in the way of torture and other moral issues. After all you don't need to take a pair of pliers to a guy's sex organ to find out about roadside bombs aimed at peacekeeper patrols, if there are no peacekeeper patrols. I basically feel we built up all of this technology so we could erase nations and culture that crossed us and were considered a threat like turning off a light switch. We're only in there fighting insurgents rifle to rifle because the troops are being exploited by businesses. Heck, it might even be justified if the money was by and large going to the country itself somehow to deal with our economic problems, but right now the US is spending far more than it's making.
I know a lot of people disagree about my basic attitudes on warfare in the region, so there is no point in argueing that (we've gone done that path here a few times already, there are probably back messages about it), the basic point is that even I, a militant war supporter, think George Bush is pretty evil. Granted he's not one of the most evil people out there, but a lot of his policy has definatly been motivated by nothing but lining his own pockets. I could justify breaking an entire culture here, and will even argue the point with other people at times, but there is no way I can justify running an ongoing police action for no other real purpose than to line your pockets. Those troops exist for the nation, not for personal profiteering (though profiteering for the nation itself is a differant story, and one of the oldest motivations for war that there is).
Well, yes and no.Rex Fallout said:
I might disagree with his policies, but Mao was pretty much motivated by making China a better place. Just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean his motives were evil.
See, warfare and even mass murder are not nice things, but in the end they are just tools and the expression of will. Many people who have done such things were evil, but others, well not really. It's not about how many lives you end. I hate the guy and his politics, but I'd consider him less evil than Stalin or Hitler, and I don't think either of them would make my personal top five if I was pushed to come up with one, and maybe even not the top ten.
For the sake of pure evil, my #1 is Pol Pot, not because of how many he killed, but because of him not really having a valid reason for the people he killed, as well as going out of the way to make them suffer.
I'd rate guys like say the BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) killer as higher than say Hitler or Stalin because he had no real purpose to his murders other than personal gratification, he enjoyed human suffering. He knew flat out what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway, and had no purpose other than his own enjoyment.
Pol Pot is like a Green River Killer, BTK, Jefferey Dahmer, or other maniac who managed to get into power where he could unleash his evil on a massive scale. The whole purpose being death and misery, and looking for any justification to spread it. I don't think Mao, Hitler, or Stalin started out thinking "gee, I want to horribly kill a bunch of people, how do I justify this and get people to follow me", rather they started out thinking about how they could make life better for people, and wound up where they were. At the worst you can look at them and invoke the old statement about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, and depending on your personal politics might not even think that applies when it comes to someone like Mao (ie if your a believer in Communism, your generally going to believe he acted for the greater good and simply did what had to be done). I don't think Mao anticipated China becoming what it is now, any more than Lenin saw what was going to happen to Russia.
The thing is that actual evil is usually recognized, and thus it's a very rare thing when you see someone who is outright evil convincing enough people to back them to operate on a national, or global level. That's why we don't have many people like Pol Pot, though in political arguements people will make the accusation because of the power the image carries, without it being true.
People who say "there is no good and evil, it's all subjective; so long as you believe what you're doing is right, then it's not evil."
I'm going to vote for Muhammad out of personal dislike. Religious leaders in general tick me off, but just look at the mess we're in because of him.
Islam took the vibrant, beautiful, scientifically-advanced cultures of the Middle East and turned them into intellectual backwaters. And now this attitude is spreading. That right there is the greatest sin. Human life, unfortunately, is cheap. I think history has taught us that much. But, I just can't forgive anyone who tramples on knowledge because anti-intellectualism makes the short, crappy lives we do have that much worse.
Not to mention his personal character flaws and obsession with slaughter and death, which he then passed on to his followers. xtianity has the same problems, but you can't really follow those disgusting values back to just one person like you can with islam.
Islam took the vibrant, beautiful, scientifically-advanced cultures of the Middle East and turned them into intellectual backwaters. And now this attitude is spreading. That right there is the greatest sin. Human life, unfortunately, is cheap. I think history has taught us that much. But, I just can't forgive anyone who tramples on knowledge because anti-intellectualism makes the short, crappy lives we do have that much worse.
Not to mention his personal character flaws and obsession with slaughter and death, which he then passed on to his followers. xtianity has the same problems, but you can't really follow those disgusting values back to just one person like you can with islam.
Carl Panzram. A remorseless misanthrope, a child rapist and murderer. The things he did were outlandish and disgusting, and he said for all of it he was "not the least bit sorry."
Seriously? MULTIPLE people couldn't tell the assassination by sniper thing was sarcasm?Sikratua said:Right.... Because it's such a sign of tolerance and decency to openly endorse murdering people with whom you disagree politically. Good the fuck on you.Harry Mason said:I'm going with this guy...
No, he's not really "evil" or the "worst ever," but he does have a large part in American civilization back pedaling so voraciously and being so proud of it. He really should be taken off the air. With a sniper bullet, if that's what it takes.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? "I don't like his show. He must die." That is some seriously bullshit logic, and I think you know it. Or, at least, you'd likely try to call someone else on it if they said that about someone you like. And, no. I don't give a shit that you claim to have been joking. I think that you backpedaled into that when you got called on your bullshit, quite frankly.
But, on topic, Pol Pot.
I guess it's true. You really do have to spell stuff out for everybody...
*sigh*
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I nor anyone else can or should stop anyone from expressing those opinions... but dude... really? The deaths of millions doesn't disturb you in the least?Therumancer said:
I find it silly and childish how "most evil" translates into simply "Politically dissagrees with". Seriously, Glen Beck? O'Riely?
When I was 12 the person who WAS my best friend tried to have me murdered by his older brother and that brother's friends simply because I told him I wouldnt let him beat his girlfriend unconscious for cheating on him. That to me was a true face of evil. He betrayed a loyal friend to satisfy his own wrath and hubris. I ended up getting knifed at the age of freaking 12 by someone sent by the guy who only 3 weeks earlier called me his best friend.
I swear, many of you must never have actually faced true adversity or stood in the presence of true evil to think like this. This is why politics is so poisonous in the western world. After the deminishing of religion (up to you whether that is good or bad) we have shown that as a race we havent really advanced for it. Difference without progress. We still cry "EVIL!" at mere dissagreement.
To answer the question though...the sceptic in me says we probly will never know, because whoever is the most evil in the world has likely covered enough of thier tracks and had enough of thier wickedness go undetected that they wouldnt be on the radar for "most evil person"...though they probly couldnt get away with everything.
When I was 12 the person who WAS my best friend tried to have me murdered by his older brother and that brother's friends simply because I told him I wouldnt let him beat his girlfriend unconscious for cheating on him. That to me was a true face of evil. He betrayed a loyal friend to satisfy his own wrath and hubris. I ended up getting knifed at the age of freaking 12 by someone sent by the guy who only 3 weeks earlier called me his best friend.
I swear, many of you must never have actually faced true adversity or stood in the presence of true evil to think like this. This is why politics is so poisonous in the western world. After the deminishing of religion (up to you whether that is good or bad) we have shown that as a race we havent really advanced for it. Difference without progress. We still cry "EVIL!" at mere dissagreement.
To answer the question though...the sceptic in me says we probly will never know, because whoever is the most evil in the world has likely covered enough of thier tracks and had enough of thier wickedness go undetected that they wouldnt be on the radar for "most evil person"...though they probly couldnt get away with everything.
Yeah, I had heard of it, I think she was kidnapped at age 5 or so, and kept until age 25-ish, when she was found.Blatherscythe said:
That is a misconception. Nobody ever believes they're doing the wrong thing. Ever. Otherwise they don't do it.Saulkar said:
They might see it as the wrong side according to society/other people, but in their eyes it is honestly the most correct thing to do. They also might come to believe it was wrong later, after the action. In light of new information you reassess your previous actions and conclude them erroneous or misguided. This is possible. You might even regret it mere moments after the action is done, or otherwise impossible to revert.
However, nobody ever does anything that, at the time they did it, they considered wrong.
That's why concepts like "good" and "evil" are human fabrications. Evil is what the winners of a war call the view of the defeated.
Capitalist American Dogs and your Wall street Masters, Mao with bring chinese commumism to victory! Let one hundred flowers bloom!mechanixis said:
I would agree with Mao up above, thought his whole topic is ahrd to get into. I don't liek the excuse people are giving of having good intentions though as one it presumes they wer ebeing completely honest about their intent which is impossible to qualify and two, most people tend to beleive what they are doing is right, I imagien the Ku Klux Klan would very much beleive that what they were doing was right as would a rapist targeting women as they "deserved it and besides shouldn't he be able to get what he wants?"
See I noticed this as well, this is why it needs to be made clear if there is a way to appeal on peoples behalf, as tons of people of talked about Mao. I think its becaus eof low content, but it still applys to the discussion.mechanixis said:
OT: Colonel Théoneste Bagosora one of the sick fucks that helped organise the Rwanda Genocide