NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

Pol Pot

I thought Pol Pot was rather rude.

Tsar Nicolas II.

Here is the beauty of free speech... I CAN say Bush.

Bush.











OK, really, I am gonna go with Hitler at the moment. I may change my mind later.

Tsar Nicolas II.

Why him? I'm not trying to slam your choice, I'm just honestly curious.

Too easy. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Baby Doc, Vlad Tepes, any Borgia Pope, Nero, Caligula, Sadam Hussein, ...

Too easy. Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Baby Doc, Vlad Tepes, any Borgia Pope, Nero, Caligula, Sadam Hussein, ...

Surely you mean Papa Doc? Baby Doc was no saint, but he wasn't especially brutal, just corrupt as hell. Papa Doc, on the other hand, was brutal and corrupt.

Jimmy Carter, for shits and giggles.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII.

Jimmy Carter, for shits and giggles.

That's actually not too bad a choice.

Because he was the most reactionary leader I could think of in 10 seconds.

Fair enough.

I won't argue that the guy wasn't a prick, but I can think of several that were far more evil.

Every murderous dictator has had good intentions at heart - we shouldn't judge.

Dick Cheney.

Why him? I'm not trying to slam your choice, I'm just honestly curious.

Because he was the most reactionary leader I could think of in 10 seconds.

Hitler, Stalin, and the one person you never expected, Mr. Rogers!

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII.

Fiddles isn't evil - he's just Horribly Naughty.

(Hence the H. N.)

Fiddles isn't evil - he's just Horribly Naughty.

(Hence the H. N.)

Well, I guess Hitler just needed a spanking.

Fiddles isn't evil - he's just Horribly Naughty.

(Hence the H. N.)

Actually it stands for Horatio Norbert - which is his real name.

Chris Horatio Norbert Crocker to be exact.

Surely you mean Papa Doc? Baby Doc was no saint, but he wasn't especially brutal, just corrupt as hell. Papa Doc, on the other hand, was brutal and corrupt.

You're right, I did mean Papa Doc.

Well?

Religion, obviously :rolleyes:


Don't say people don't follow it.

Religion, obviously :rolleyes:


Don't say people don't follow it.

Religion is not a person, though.

Fiddles isn't evil - he's just Horribly Naughty.

(Hence the H. N.)

No ... Horribly Narcoleptic.

I honestly have to say, aside from hitler, my choice is Atilla the hun...Vlad the Impaler is a close, but more awesome, second...

Religion is not a person, though.

No, it's a multitude of persons and persuasions, with a singular intent.
Nonetheless ...:
The most evil leader in history.
Didn't say "person".

Religion, obviously :rolleyes:


Don't say people don't follow it.
Or maybe its the lack of understanding religion, that should be blamed.

Or maybe its the lack of understanding religion, that should be blamed.

No. Religion isn't hard to understand, being merely a philosophy. It abides the same principles as does any other conspiracy theory, by filling in blanks with what might seem credible from certain perspectives.
And in that, of course, betrayal.

No. Religion isn't hard to understand, being merely a philosophy. It abides the same principles as does any other conspiracy theory, by filling in blanks with what might seem credible from certain perspectives.
And in that, of course, betrayal.


Well, I, along with millions, likely billions, of people haven't done horrible things in the name of religion. Don't use a select few to judge the whole crowd. You should know better!

Well, I, along with millions, likely billions, of people haven't done horrible things in the name of religion. Don't use a select few to judge the whole crowd. You should know better!

That's not the problem, Zi, you know that. I'm not singling out "Christians" or "Bahai'i" or "Wahabbi" ... the problem is that there is a "crowd" at all.

Bush-religion, Bush-religion - it was always going to be close but it looks like religion's pulling ahead.

An uber-thread would be 'Bush is evil because of his religion' - has it been done before?

Hey guys, let's not forget Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's pretty bad.

But yes, it's pretty a pretty easy question to answer. Hitler and Stalin are definitely up there. As well as all the afore mentioned.

Regarding people who actually did say "Bush" I would say that, that's incorrect. I mean of course everyone has their own opinion, but I don't think he ranks up with the truly evil leaders in history. Yes Bush has been a bad leader, but bad and evil are not necessarily the same thing. I also realize that he has caused the deaths of quite a few people, but still, come on. Hitler caused a war that ended up killing more than 10,000,000 people. Now I'm no math genius (Well that's a lie) but I'm pretty sure that 10,000,000 > 150,000. (I'm sorry if the numbers are incorrect.)

Alright, my rant is over.

Well, let's think outside the box on this one...

I'd have to say Chingis Khan Temujin gets the nod for this one. Why? Sacking cities, massacring the entire populations, piling their skulls in a mountain and then sowing the fields with salt so that no crops would grow their, killing close to 10 million people in China.

To top it all off, these cities were only pillaged to make an example of what resistance entailed. He forced the rest of China to submit and lick his boots, rendering enormous amounts of tribute.

Gee, sounds like a nice guy.

Well, let's think outside the box on this one...

I'd have to say Chingis Khan Temujin gets the nod for this one. Why? Sacking cities, massacring the entire populations, piling their skulls in a mountain and then sowing the fields with salt so that no crops would grow their, killing close to 10 million people in China.

To top it all off, these cities were only pillaged to make an example of what resistance entailed. He forced the rest of China to submit and lick his boots, rendering enormous amounts of tribute.

Gee, sounds like a nice guy.

He was indeed a real asshole, and I'm glad I finally found someone who agrees. :)

Bush-religion, Bush-religion - it was always going to be close but it looks like religion's pulling ahead.

An uber-thread would be 'Bush is evil because of his religion' - has it been done before?I don't think it has!
It's almost worth a lock and warning. *nods*

Arguments will be made about how long Bush was his "natural" self until he was "born-again", however ... and the inevitable comparison/contrast with "Antichrist".
And his "loyal" following and their religious persuasion.

He was indeed a real asshole, and I'm glad I finally found someone who agrees. :)

Tell me about it. It's amazing how many people admire him for his military conquests. That's equivalent to admiring Hitler and Nazi Germany for their short-lived conquest of nearly all of Europe.

Tell me about it. It's amazing how many people admire him for his military conquests. That's equivalent to admiring Hitler and Nazi Germany for their short-lived conquest of nearly all of Europe.

Concurred.

John Howard.

That's not the problem, Zi, you know that. I'm not singling out "Christians" or "Bahai'i" or "Wahabbi" ... the problem is that there is a "crowd" at all.

What exactly is wrong with people believing in God(s)? It gives people hope, morals, and so on. Religion is beautiful when its not perverted by leaders.

What exactly is wrong with people believing in God(s)? It gives people hope, morals, and so on. Religion is beautiful when its not perverted by leaders.

I agree.

As the creator of Dilbert said,

Oh, and this Punk-rockified picture of Noam Chomsky agrees too.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o13/eljefeskier/noamistotallyanarchoi.jpg

You win the thread. :p

I agree.

As the creator of Dilbert said, "Everyone says there's a lack of leadership in the world these days. I thinkwe shoudl all be thankful, because the only reason for leadership is to convince people to do things that are either dangerous (like invading another country) or stupid (working extra hard without extra pay

"Obviously you don't need any leadership to lead you to, for example, eat a warm cookie. But you need a lot of leadership to convince you to march through a desert and shoot strangers. Generally speaking, wherever there is leadership, there is lots of hollering and very few warm cookies."

Oh, and this Punk-rockified picture of Noam Chomsky agrees too.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o13/eljefeskier/noamistotallyanarchoi.jpg

John Howard.

Indeed, only 2 weeks left.... only 2 weeks.

i don't need to say bush, although he's certainly in the running.

i don't even need to say hitler, although he certainly has a low place of dishonor among them.

instead allow me to nominate andrew jackson and alexander the so called great.

then of course there's 'bootsie' calligula.

but were even constentine or patricious such sweathearts?

i'm not sure how you'd rate "worst". there's a deep end of causing suffering and harm beyond which compairisons become meaningless, and it does seem to be rather well populated.

=^^=
.../\...

Timur the Lame. He makes Chingis Khan look like an upstart punk.

Imma go with Joey Stalin.

25 million of your own people is a bit much.
Also, far more importantly, he was a hobbyist mime.

*shudder* ...mimes...

Charles manson or something. I didn't pick a dictator because I think killing people for political gain isn't as evil as brainwashing and killing just for the hell of it.

Charles manson or something. I didn't pick a dictator because I think killing people for political gain isn't as evil as brainwashing and killing just for the hell of it.Charles Manson didn't kill people just for the hell of it. he killed them to fulfil his plan/expectation/whatever Helter Skelter.

To be honest, killing millions of people is probly a good thing in the long run of the human race and the planet as there are too many humans as it is. the bad bit is being 1 of those people and discriminating against certain groups when doing so.

Henry VIII of England, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Emperor Bokassa, Chairman Mao, General Pinochet, Papa Doc Duvalier, Qin Shi Huang, the Greek colonels - it could be a very long list.

If any one person could be blamed for the Congolese War, they'd have to rank pretty high on this list.

Mao would probably top my list. Some of the things he did and caused... Hmm, I think Emperor Qin was also not a nice guy at all.

The most evil leader in history? (you can't say bush)Bush :D

Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ivan the Terrible, Nero, Ayatollah Khomeni, Kim Il Sung and Idi Amin would rank at the top of my list...

Stalin. Followed by Tony Blair.

Jesus.

Heinrich Himmler.

Most people like to say Adolf Hitler, but in reality it was Heinrich Himmler, as the Reichsfuhrer of the Schuztstaffel who directed, ran, and approved every bit of the Final Solution. Hitler told him to do it, but Himmler was the one who got it done.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII.
I swear to God, everyone of those nuns was killed in self-defense, and the orphans had it coming too.
Anyway, it doesn't matter what you all think because history will absolve me.

You win the thread. :p

*bows*

So many to choose from...

I think at the top of the list is one Joseph Stalin.
-For striking a bargain with Hitler to conquer Europe
-For 20 million deaths from reorganization
-For personal paranoia leading to the torture and death of even family members
-Some say he assassinated Lenin, or had him assassinated.
-For all the things that later inspired one George Orwell to teach us what to avoid

Honorable Mentions:

Osama Bin Ladin
Saddam Hussein
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Adolph Hitler
Hernando Cortez (And other Conquistadores collectively)
King Philip the Fair of France
Mehmed II
Emperor Nero

Fair enough.

I won't argue that the guy wasn't a prick, but I can think of several that were far more evil.

And far more competent to boot.

You know, I think there's an upper limit on the sliding scale of evil, where anything beyond that is just classified as, like, an evil equivalent of infinity. You've gotta be uniquely awful to hit that level, but it's been done. Beyond that point evil is no longer really comparable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13195377&postcount=30

Look at that post. Okay? I'm not pro-republican/bush at all. I'm just saying...

This is very democrtic, there is so much choice when it comes to murdering despots, but "The Best Of..." should include:

Pol Pot - For Oustanding Dedication as a Mass Murdering, Tourturing Tosser

Amunhotep IV - For Outstanding Dedication to the Destruction of Society

Papa Doc - For Archetypical Despot of the 20th Century

Thatcher!

I'm not to happy with bush myself, but he is our president. And anyway saying LULZ BUSH ID EBIL all the time is nonsense, he made some admitedly bad desisions but I don't think he is evil. But then again he did betray the conservatives with that Liberal socialist like spending.

We can't say Bush because he is not, in fact, evil. Bush, like his father, is more along the lines of "just doesn't get it". That can lead to amazingly insensitive and inconsiderate acts like unilateralism and pre-emptive war, but it isn't really evil.

My vote, therefore, would go to whoever led the Jews into Canaan and completed a genocide there. I think that genocide may have started the whole pre-history of the chronic Middle East disaster.

At some point actions just get so horrible that one isnt really any "worse" than the other, they are just all horrific and evil.

We can't say Bush because he is not, in fact, evil. Bush, like his father, is more along the lines of "just doesn't get it". That can lead to amazingly insensitive and inconsiderate acts like unilateralism and pre-emptive war, but it isn't really evil.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

-Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)

I vote Adam and Eve. Between the two of them, they propogated millions of deaths, thefts, and all sorts of evils.

Well?

It depends on what you mean by 'evil'. Evil is relative and dependant upon the person's own interpretation of what is truly evil, as evil can be used in many ways and depending on the context can have wide ranging connotations.

Now, evil leader? I'll say Stephan Harper. I mean, Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot... meh, everyone knows they're evil, but no one suspects the anti-Christ of Canada himself.

I don't think you should rank this scale on sheer number of deaths. Evil is not some numbers game, because plenty of these leaders *could* have done more and were stopped in some fashion. I would say 'evil' is in terms of 'lack of good' i that they knowingly did what they did and didn't care. For that, a lot of what seems ideological comes across as evil to outsiders; in a sense, their ideology justifies them in their own eyes. To Hitler, creating the Reich overrided other concerns, to Stalin, a strong country. Both at least played at the idea that they were doing it for some 'greater good' no matter how twisted that ended up being.

As for *evil*, that means they don't have any ideology at *all* for justifying it, but are dedicated solely to malice and self-propagation.

Temujin was an S.O.B. to people outside his group, but supposedly the Mongols were at least decent amongst themselves. I would have to say one of the most 'evil' of leaders would be someone who participated in torture and murder for the fun of it. Sadism is big regarding 'evil' to me, and Marquis de Sade should be on the list too.

I would have to say Lady Elizabeth Bathory was one of the most evil, in my mind. Maybe Vlad the Impaler for the men?

Abraham Lincoln

Imma go with Joey Stalin.

25 million of your own people is a bit much.
Also, far more importantly, he was a hobbyist mime.

*shudder* ...mimes...
I didn't realise he was into mine, although I did hear he was trying to crossbreed apes and humans to form a worker race.

Not very socialist of him.

If any one person could be blamed for the Congolese War, they'd have to rank pretty high on this list.

The Second Congo War? Well, two people could be partly blamed for that: Yoweri Museveni and Paul Kagame.

Bush :D

Don't you mean Cheney? :rolleyes:






























;)

Actually it stands for Horatio Norbert - which is his real name.

Chris Horatio Norbert Crocker to be exact.

All the more reason to distrust him. History has shown that anyone with four or more names can never be trusted.