Name The Most Evil Human Being In History!!!!!!!

My vote goes for Charles Manson.

Oh please, he's a friggin lightweight

:D

Pol Pot too.

to get any power at all?

If you are on the right track, then shouldn't Lenin be your nominee for most evil human being?

Admittedly, Lenin couldn't personally enforce any rules after a stroke or two, but either Lenin gets blame for creating the game and its administrative apparatus or Lenin doesn't deserve any credit that some give him for being "the architect" of the system. In some respected encyclopaedias, Lenin is described not as "tyrant", but as "architect" (figurative), inspirer, leader, first head of state of the USSR -- all either neutral or positive sounding descriptions.

...was instrumental in creating a system that was certainly brutal and dehumanising, but it was Stalin's overwhelming paranoia and megalomania that led to so many deaths. Was it 20 million? 40? 60? Nobody seems quite sure and every new biography adds a few million more. So I suppose it comes down to who is guiltiest: the one who builds the slaughterhouse and sharpens all the tools, or the one who takes up the tools and uses them?

Of course, Mao is another candidate. His Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution probably took the deathtoll north of 100 million. Yet he was a blind fool following an unattainable dream, regardless of the consequences. Stalin was a psychopath whose own family weren't even safe.

It would however, be very interesting to speculate what Lenin would have done had he remained alive and well. Perhaps a cooler-headed brutality. Perhaps greater repression with fewer murders. Who knows?

Honestly, that's something that I admire about Stalin. If you were a prosecutor who sometimes asked for the death penalty, would you let your personal relationships take precedence over the principles of jurisprudence that motivate your selective requests for a court to impose the death penalty?

I *would* let my personal relationships take precedence over the principles of jurisprudence, if push came to shove.

There is no enslavement as complete as that to an idea. The principles of jurisprudence are, de facto, not universal, because they are different - sometimes radically different - from country to country. Jurisprudence deserves our deep support but not our blind allegiance.

Putting flesh and blood before paper and ink doesn't seem like a bad idea to me at all.

Meanwhile, I find nothing to admire about Stalin except that he is dead. He was in all ways a boor, a psychotic, an ignoramus, a paranoid industrial-scale murderer, and a naive fool who thought he had looked in Hitler's eyes and seen his soul.

Peace.

...and his commitment to jurisprudience was one of expediency. If the courts could deal with his enemies, fine. If not, then assassination, slaughter or extralegal deportation to gulags would do the job just as well.

To my thinking, Stalin's only real commitment was to himself and his enormous sense of his own importance and ultimate place in history. I think he's the biggest monster because his actions were truly monsterous, and bore only passing relation to normal human behavior. Other leaders have committed monsterous crimes in the name of some ideal or principle. Stalin did it because it he felt it was the fastest way to give himself the security he so desperately craved.

I read somewhere in a book about Stalin, that Lenin when he was down to his last days on Earth was finally discovering how brutal and violent Stalin could be to his own people, which surprised even him! He sent an underling to relieve Stalin of his duties, and put someone else in line for to succeed him. Lenin dies while this underling was still in route to demote Stalin. When Stalin hears of his death he immediately begins to take hold of power, and make sure that no one else is around to challenge him, obviously the underling never delivered the message. This was the start of many great purges in which, as you said, 20, 40, maybe even 60 million people died, and many of these were tortured before they died. So, I agree with you, Lenin may not have been a great "good" leader, but what Stalin did after him was much more evil.

You're making assumptions about why one might deem Stalin the most evil human being as opposed to Lenin, i.e. you seem to be assuming that it's all about "the system." Systems, good and bad, are created and used in various ways. Other Soviet and Soviet-style leaders used that system without inflicting quite the same level of pure horror on the people of the USSR that Stalin did.

Lenin was certainly no angel, but what he did and what he created does not mitigate the terror of Stalin's regime.

that socialism is systematically evil and inevitably leads to the gulag and millions of deaths. Therefore the original perpetrator is the one who creates the system, and the one who actually orders the killing and the internment is only the secondary perpetrator.

Bill Clinton! :sarcasm:

At least you'd think that were the case given how he's still responsible for everything that goes wrong. :eyes:

..... she pointed and laughed. :blush:

I have been in therapy for years over that.

;-)

I think she played the Wicked Witch in Wizard of Oz.

I hated her.

n/t

Do I win a prize or something?

He's got his own channel on cable TV.

...At least as far as modern history is concerned. Hitler and Stalin were evil men no doubt, but even they cannot compare to the savagery and bare-faced brutality of Idi Amin. If he was not the most evil man of the 20th century, he was, at the very least, the craziest. His official title speaks volumes: "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular."

Prior to the modern era? Tamerlane, Vlad Dracula, Torquemada...

Amoral and he is truly amoral. He has the capacity to be hitler, Genghis khan, mussolini or any other despot. The difference is he is in our time and it is up to us to stop him.,

Nuff said

He is literally a heartless SOB, and I think he pulls all of Bush's strings, and therefore, is the brains behind Bush's evil.

Oliver Cromwell Society:

http://www.olivercromwell.org/quotes2.htm

owing to his brutishness.

Something in the manner of the way people at Free Republic like Oliver North.

Only Cromwell was worst still.

His violent, even menaciningly violent suppression of the Irish is the basis for my nomination.

I considered Paul of Tarsus, however, but he'll have to settle for runner-up.

Kit Carson came in third.

the decision to buy African slaves for importation to North and South America, then would that person be your nominee for most evil human being in history?

genocide, and the conditions which constitute it, regrettably are not restricted to one event.

Genocide and its conditions are sadly found in almost all cultures across many geographies and eras, including Africa.

Hitler and Stalin are getting the requisite attention in thi thread, so I thought I'd throw in another worthy choice, this time from the United Kingdom in the 17th century. It was also an abomination based on race.

My second choice to the OP's question might have been Paul of Tarsus, with Kit Carson coming in a respectable third.

Cromwell's trajectory through politics and religion.

Quotations from the bottom vary in tone and perspective, but provide insight.

entire site. Do you think that Cromwell had no legitimate concerns about the power of the Roman Catholic Church or do you think that he should have confined all his efforts in the religious controversy to speech?

Was the Pope who was in power during Cromwell's reign (or were the Popes who were in power during Cromwell's reign) willing to confine RCC anti-Protestant activities to speech?

soldiers to fill his ranks on the basis of their dedication to protestantism.

After Henry, England practiced "Catholicism" but without papal authority. Henry, in effect, insisted on anullment of his marriages to produce a male offspring; when the Pope refused, he told the Pope to go to hell. Cromwell was not only Protestant in this shadow but a Puritan, finding that it served his purposes both in England and later in Ireland.

It would be extremely difficult to locate a more anti-Catholic figure in human history than Oliver Cromwell. He would be on the tip of many an Irish tongue to this day on that subject.

military command in Ireland.

_ _ _ _ _ _

The geography of Drogheda was crucial to the siege.
....

On September 10, Cromwell issued his first official summons to Sir Arthur Aston:

"Having brought the army belonging to the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, to the end the effusion of blood may be prevented, I thought it fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. If this be refused you will have no cause to blame me."

Cromwell's Forces commence(d) their bombardment of Drogheda.

Aston refused to surrender, and Cromwell's cannons opened fire. The walls of the city began to crumble. Aston quickly realized that he was in danger. The (Protestant) Parliamentary fleet blockaded the harbor. The Duke of Ormonde could send no more reinforcements, his arms and provisions were running short. Worst of all, like all of Ireland, Drogheda was not united. Some of those inside the walls preferred the English Parliamentary force.

Knowing that there could be "no quarter" (no mercy) if he refused to surrender, Aston decided to fight on, writing to the Duke of Ormonde that his soldiers, at least, "were unanimous in their resolution to perish rather than to deliver up the place."

The (Catholic) defenders fought bravely, at first turning back the attackers, but eventually the Parliamentarians crashed through the walls and seized St. Mary's Church. Aston and some defenders fled to Mill Mount. Possessed by bloodlust, the Parliamentarians rushed up the hill, and all defenders, including Aston, were killed by order of Cromwell. The Parliamentarians swept through the streets with orders to kill anyone in arms. Against orders, civilians also were killed in the rush. Priests and friars were treated as combatants by Cromwell's Puritans and executed. Even more horrible was the fate of the defenders of St. Peter's Church in the northern part of the town; the church was burned down around them. By nightfall, only small pockets of resistance on the walls remained. When they managed to kill some (Protestant) Parliamentarians, Cromwell ordered the captured (Catholic) officers to be "knocked on the head" and every 10th soldier (Catholic) executed. Nearly 4,000 (Catholic) Confederates died at Drogheda.

Drogheda's being divided by the river caused some confusion and may have led to the massacre. When forces on one side of the river surrendered, it is alleged that Cromwell, still meeting resistance on the other side, ordered the annihilation of the entire population. "I do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the sugar plantations at Barbados.

....

After the massacre, Cromwell sought to explain his actions in a letter to William Lenthall, speaker of the English Parliament:

"...I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbued their hands in so much innocent blood, and it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remourse and regret...."

. . . . .

. . . . .

The Duke of Ormonde lay with 10,000 men on the Kilkenny side of the River Suir opposite Waterford and the (Protestant) Parliamentarians. He sent the Baron of Inchiquin to try to recapture Carrick, but he failed. Cromwell had 7,000 at the beginning of the siege, but wet weather and plague reduced the number to 3,000. At that point, Ormonde could have stopped him. Again, Ormonde's army did not come into play, because of the same disunity that plagued the Irish at Drogheda and Wexford. His army was seen by most Irish as an alien force, just as offensive as Cromwell's. Cromwell sought to exploit this feeling in his summons to Waterford on November 21, 1649. His warning was similar to those given to Drogheda and Wexford, but the result was different. Hunger and disease had taken such a toll on Cromwell's force that eventually he was compelled to retreat.

Cromwell came out of winter quarters at the end of January 1650 and began the conquest of southern Ireland. He offered terms of surrender at the city of Fethard on February 2. Officers, soldiers and priests would be allowed to march away, and the townspeople would be protected from looting. The town of Cashel surrendered without a fight, and Cromwell turned his army on Callan, a city defended by a strong wall and three castles. He attacked with cannons, took two of the castles, put their defenders to the sword and accepted the surrender of the third.

. . . .

Cromwell pushed on, taking the towns of Kiltenan, Dundrum, Ballynakill and Kildare. He and other Parliamentarians next converged on Kilkenny, headquarters of the Confederacy. He summoned Kilkenny on March 22, 1650:

"My coming hither is to endeavour, if God so please to bless me, the reduction of the city of Kilkenny to their obedience to the state of England, from which, by an unheard of massacre of the innocent English, you have endeavored to rend yourselves."

. . . .

. . . .

At the end of 1650, Ormonde left Ireland and was replaced by the Earl of Clanridarde, who was just as despised as Ormonde and could not unite the factions. Ireton again tried to take Limerick in June 1651, and after a siege of five months, the city, under the command of Black Hugh O'Neill, yielded. Ireton died of the plague in November, but Edmund Ludlow and Charles Fleetwood completed the subjugation. Both of them later became Lord Lieutenants of Ireland. Galway, the last city to resist, surrendered in May 1652. The war that had begun in 1641 was over, and more than 616,000 people died in the 12 years of the war.

Many today trace the current problems in Northern Ireland back to Cromwell. The British troops in Northern Ireland are referred to as "Cromwell's Boys," and there is hardly a ruined building in Ireland whose destruction is not blamed on Cromwell.

=================================

 (from http://www.doyle.com.au/cromwell.htm )




 





Cromwell: A powerful historical
figure--"warts and all".


Prior to the English Civil Wars, Oliver Cromwell was neither an important member of Parliament nor a person with military experience. Nevertheless, as a member of the English gentry, he was expected to exercise leadership. Most English professional soldiers of the day were royalists, so anyone of wealth who could raise troops for the English Parliament was encouraged to do so. Cromwell's first act was to raise troops on his own and loot valuable silver plate at the University of Cambridge.


He later returned home and organized the Eastern Association Army from five Eastern countries of England, a source of strong support for the Parliament, which provided more men than any other area in England.


Cromwell chose his men for their Protestant religious fervor and implemented strict Puritan discipline. He also promoted officers by ability rather than by wealth, a radical step for the time. For recruiting so many men, Cromwell was promoted from captain to colonel.


Cromwell's troops were so disciplined and dedicated they won against superior numbers at the battles of Grantham, Marston Moor, Naseby and Long Sutton. When he was defeated at Gainsborough on July 28, 1643, his troops were able to retreat in good order and avoided being massacred.


It was at Marston Moor on July 2, 1644, that he earned the name "Ironside." Cromwell, then a lieutenant general, was wounded, but he refused to leave the field. The sobriquet Ironsides was later applied to all his troops.


When the second English Civil War broke out, Cromwell was putting down royalist uprisings. Having accomplished that, he turned his army north and at the eight-day battle of Preston defeated a combined royalist-Scottish force by August 19, 1648, ending the war. His next major act was the Irish campaign.


After Ireland, Cromwell was appointed commander in chief of all forces of the English Commonwealth and was sent to fight the Scots who had declared for King Charles II. The Scottish campaign was not characterized by the same brutality of the Irish campaign. The battles of Dunbar and Worchester, which occurred exactly one year apart on September 3, 1650, and 1651 respectively, were routs of troops rather than massacres of civilians.


Cromwell was the most powerful man in England when the Commonwealth was dissolved in April 1653 and the Protectorate was formed, with Cromwell as Lord Protector on December 16. As lord protector Cromwell ended the naval war with Holland. He also fought a colonial war with Spain in which England captured Jamaica, which remained in British hands until 1962.


Cromwell was less successful on the domestic front. He continually faced threats from both royalists and levellers, a group that wanted to abolish the aristocracy. Tired of the disorder, Cromwell imposed military rule. His decision to divide England into 11 districts under the control of a major general was his most unpopular act. It was also the last time anyone tried to impose martial law in England.


One of the most complex figures in English history, Oliver Cromwell is still either strongly loved or hated. There is ample evidence to justify both sentiments.  

What were the consequences for the owner or owners of the valuable silver plate?

ruthless, his use of power and force and manipulation to suppress and then destroy the Levelers in England, his slobbering willingness to insist that England by a "Godly commonwealth," his military oppression of Ireland and enslavement of thousands of its peoples in boats to Barbados, and later as Lord General his support of draconian social laws.

His regime replaced Charles' regime with a harsher regimen and a heartless Puritanical tyranny.

A blood-sucking power-mongering son-of-a-bitch.

That's why he got my nomination.

In order to preserve his "dynasty," Cromwell attempted to marry his son to the (Catholic) Spanish Infanta.

on Cromwell.

Yes.

Not a very kind-hearted soul, was he? Ambitious hands leveraging power for almost all his adult life.

Slaughtering people after he defeated them and sending the survivors to Barbados, then invoking his Puritan God as justification... just too much.

Nice to see you on DU.

Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, among others top my list. Some of them really go without saying. I think it is a shame that the evils of Stalin aren't discussed as often as the crimes of Hitler. Thank god the Third Reich ended in 1945 but the Soviet Union was far from over on VE Day. The crimes of both the USSR and Nazi Germany on their people and those they occuped are among some of the worst in history and sadly many people including some in my own family lived suffered first hand through both. A note about Cromwell his legacy should be taken to mind too. The discrimination of Irish Catholics in Ireland had a lot to do with Cromwell and his cruddy legacy.

-- I give them wide berth for all their dark deeds. Stalin is under-examined, as you say.

On the other hand, Cromwell crushed the Irish, driven in part by his megalomania and part by an intense anti-Catholic prejudice, and those he didn't slaughter he shipped to Barbados as slaves.

Just a total asshole, really.

Never did like the guy and tonight gave me a chance to say so!

Yeah I know all about what he did to the Irish. It was just disgraceful I am sure he's rotting in his grave knowing that the Irish Republic proudly exists. I look at legacies when I examine history which is why I'll rate FDR or Abe Lincoln high on my list.

modern-day hostilities in Northern Ireland.

Right on the button, IMO.

Several places on the web agree with you -- it's not just me agreeing with you on this. You hear again and again writers tracing the current hostilities back to Oliver Cromwell's campaign against Ireland in the 17th Century.

He was a tyrant and to be quite honest if I had been an Englishman during hte English Civil War I would have gotten the hell out of there.

is from my cultural background. I mean all the suffering the people of Eastern Europe went through for a half century will never be forgotten. I am not very critical of FDR very much but I wish he had stood up to Stalin better. I have no hatred for FDR but I wish he could have done mroe.

it would have been like if he'd taken a different approach to Stalin.

Even the greatest of people have flaws. You mentioned FDR and Lincoln earlier tonight. And despite their flaws, you picked two for the ages.

There has never been a person without his faults. There's an interesting book out there on the Soviet GUlags cfalled Gulag. Really informative and there really is a lot of ignorance out there in the west on the USSR being evil.

try.

Some of the history between Russia and Germany in the Second World War is pretty horrifying stuff.

I feel I can never see good in any extreme because of the excesses made by the extreme left and right in the past, same thing with theology and the military, extreme theological regimes like Tiso's brief one in Slovakia or Military dicatorships like in Mynammar also horrify me.

Myannmar is horrifying.

But somehow the extremist little kid who shouts out that the emperor has no clothes is ok. We need more extremists like that and fewer of the Myannmar type.

that indifference basically is what allows evil to happen and this is what happened in the Holocaust later in Rwanda, and right now in Sudan. We can't afford to be silent to evil.

this new world out there. The Bush administration isn't my idea of compassionate leadership.

I think * is just too dumb to be the most evil ever. Not to dumb to be evil, mind, but the most evil ever? Nah. Just a dumbbell who got some power.

He beat even Hitlers body count during the Cultural Revolution

Edit: Or did you mean a different Mao?

Your post wasn't visible to me when I posted mine.

It happens sometimes. Just was amusing this time.

believe Bush in his definition of Hussein.

Monsters masquearing as human beings

It was all fun and games to them.

Amazing how evil can be. It disillusions my faith in mankind every single time.

Stalin was a product of his time, a paranoid psychotic who has been demonised forever (notice noone mentioned saddam, or kim il jong, caligula, or himmler) despite the fact he did bring a 3rd world society into a nuclear superpower....
fact is, in modern history, if there are bad guys , it's us, not them! Stalin was prepared to be a servant of the revolution until he saw the bolshevik leaders murder the royal family, Tsar Nicholas 2 and his beautiful daughters- an outrage that shocked even Trotsky, a little (when told of the mass murder of the Tsar and family by Sverdlov, Trotsky reputedly said that the deed, though horrible, burned the bridges on anyone who supported the revolution, made it necessary for everyone to press on to 'total victory or total ruin'-sorta like 911 for the nazipoohs surrounding geebush and the plague-of-locust gop after stealing the US presidency)
consider this for anyone who condemns Stalin or Mao, or Fidel, or even Saddam:

taken from Gore Vidal’s ‘Dreaming War, Blood For Oil and the Bush-Cheney Junta pg 77/78:
“…But let me quote from a letter by the historian Kai Bird, which, to my amazement, the New York Times published (usually they suppress anything too critical of themselves or their Opinion makers):
‘Twice the reviewer dismisses as “silly’ Vidal’s assertion that Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was unnecessary because Japan had been trying for some months to surrender.
Such assertions are neither silly nor….a product of Vidal’s ‘cranky politics’ Rather Vidal has cleverly drawn on a rich and scholarly literature published in the last decade to remind his readers that much of what orthodox court historians have written about the Cold War was simply wrong. With regard to Hiroshima, perhaps Vidal had in mind Truman’s July 1945 handwritten diary reference to a ‘telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace’

note= hiroshima was bombed on august 7/45

so the evilest human in history is just a matter of personal prejudice-the unnecessary bombing of 2 japanese cities isn't well known, especially by Americans, who've been told the bombing was necessary to save up to a million lives etc...but the Japanese certainly know about it, just like the Iraqis and Vietnamese knew they were not any threat to the US...in a way, we are hostages to too much horrors our own people committed, supposedly for our benefit, and the world just kept turning...

Did this attempt to surrender include freeing sex slaves, taking ammunition out of guns, throwing guns onto the ground, and holding hands up in the air?

"The Most Evil Men and Women in History"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1854794884/103-3460686-7500613?v=glance&n=283155

There are a couple people in here I would disagree with, but for the most part it is a very chilling account of some seriously nasty characters.

She nears the top of my list. She was a nasty little piece of work.

Should I get it?

:rofl:

:rofl:

Seriously, how can you choose just one?
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Gengis Khan, GWB, ad nauseum(sp).

From Wikipedia:

After becoming Queen, Ranavalona had most of her relatives assassinated. She persecuted and expelled foreigners, including the island's missionaries, in 1835, and extended her rule all over the island with her 20,000-man army. Ranavalona was a violent persecuter of Christians; after expelling the missionaries failed to eradicate Christianity from her island, she began a gruesome scourging of the land. All people who possessed a bible, or outwardly claimed to be Christian, were executed. Some were trussed up like chickens and thrown from hilltops repeatedly until they died. Others were dressed in the bloody skins of animals and had hunting dogs set upon them. Some were yoked together like cattle and placed in the thick tangled jungles of Madagascar where they would break their necks trying to get free, or would get caught in the undergrowth and starve to death. However, Ranavalona's favorite method of execution was to have a prisoner placed in a pit at the bottom of a hill and have her soldiers, at the top of the hill, tip over pots of boiling water; when the water reached the pit, it would slowly rise up and boil the prisoner alive. In a sadistic twist, Ranavalona had just enough water to reach the prisoner's waist, so it could be hours before the prisoner died.

Queen Ranavalona died hated by her subjects and foreign countries alike, although a few revisionists have given her some credit for preserving traditional forms of poetry. She was mother of King Radama II, who succeeded her.

Nasty piece of work and a number of people have no idea who she even is.

her uterus was a Weapon of Mass Destruction

besides, she makes us look at her. damn, that's mean...

The sheer efficiency of his murder, the concept of moving people as quickly as possible through the chambers and ovens, using other camp inmates to do the work, his need to purify his race (when he was far from "pure") and his amazing charismatic ability to mesmerize and get other human beings to agree with him and join him in his evil.

Next to him, I'll say Walt Disney.

For example, didn't Henry Ford's influence on the world contribute to more deaths of innocents than Walt Disney's influence on the world?

Disney greatly admired Hitler and studied his "people moving" systems. (or so I have read)

I think his little plastic empires are creepy and I believe he would have done anything to fulfill his dreams, including murder. He ruined the state of Florida and his empire is a neat and clean little fascist gem.

I think Henry Ford might have inadvertantly started in motion the mechanism (pun intended) for the death of millions, but he did not do it knowingly. He was a man with an invention and he also invented a way to manufacture them.

Try replacing the word "Disney" with "Ford" and then tell me and all the lurkers whether or not you can find any evidence to support the resulting sentence.

about Disney ruining Florida.

http://www.forbesbookclub.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=I2446


I live in Florida and remember Florida before Disney.

Frankly, I don't know anything about Henry Ford so I'll decline on commenting.

Evil incarnate.

All the other good names were taken

music comes on, then there's a serious spike into the top three.

:)

and Coppola's version of Conrad's novel, "Apocolypse Now".

Approximately 10 million Africans died in the colonial oppression of King Leopold, a completely evil man, in the late 1890s and early 1900s. He personally owned the Congo as his own colony. His agents set up marauding African armies that practiced, besides outright murder, the practice of cutting off people's hands to prove that killed or captured a certain quota of people to the white officers.

read "King Leopold's Ghost" by Adam Hochschild.

Joseph Conrad served as a naval officer on the upper reaches of the Congo, from which he drew his experiences for "Heart of Darkness".

I was reading an article recently about the feud between the Hutus and the Tutsis.

This was begun by the Belgians, who gave one group preferential status, and made the other group do the menial labor and have crappy status in society.

When the Belgians left, things began to shift, and after another 30 years or so, to shift BACK, and then to get violent.

The Belgians caused all kinds of crap in Africa, directly or indirectly.

in history?

but he also murdered with his own hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Behind_The_Sun

Be forewarned, it's horrifying.

:wtf:

should suffer a massive earthquake and then sink completely into the ocean along with all its inhabitants. Seriously, they deserve it, every last one of them.

It's difficult to believe that you are serious. How about those who are simply unaware of the history? At what age should a Japanese child or teenager feel obligated to learn about that history? Having learned the history, what is the young Japanese girl, boy, man, or woman supposed to do about it?

then are you and i to blame for "allowing" the destruction of iraq?

i accept the choice of your "evil person", but have to reject the rest of your statementas a call to racism.

Men like those of the Nazi party are too many to name individualy, and they are all supremely evil. Acknowledging them here would be redundent. No one in their right mind is a fan of Hitler (or any genocidal maniac). Thus I have chosen from farther down the list: Yoji Ishikawa, who I found on Wikipedia while doing a research paper on famous photographers, has soiled the art form that I hold most dear. His "art" should be burned and he should be in jail for life.

You don't know him but TRUST me on this...

I retract my statement.

:)

automatically think Lucifer/Satan. Weird thing is that I am NOT some bible thumping fundy zealot. I tend to be more Native American spiritual than anything. However, I have no problem discussing religion in the "traditional" terminology. Semantics and language really get in the way. I think most people here in the lounge are atheist so it is not discussed much here.

Chinese leader dude that massacred millions of his people? I feel really stupid now that I can't even remember the name of the guy I consider one of the foulest humans ever

Whoopi Goldberg last night on CI. :scared:

Oh. In reality? Hannibal Lecter.

Oh, yeah. In real reality? Anyone who turned in a Jew in Germany (wherever the Nazis were in control) in the 1930s-40s.

Most excellent choice.

can't it just go away?

or.

if you're going to watch it-could you at least talk about something else once in a while?!?

...the man who sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees...

I think he is a prick.. I'm not really taking this seriously.

:shrug:

...there have been so many evil humans, it's hard to narrow it down to one.

When Eppy died Linda and Paul wanted her daddy to be their manager. The other three said no. Paul said "okay, bye".

I want a bumper sticker that reads: "Still Pissed At Linda".

heheh

The runner-up is God, in whose name billions have been murdered.

Is someone ordering an army or bureaucracy (like Hitler and Stalin) to do his dirty work worse than someone whon did it all himself (like Jeffrey Dahmer)?

I'd say they were all equally evil, because they all participated in bloody, evil deeds.

U.S. military, Iranian citizens, Afgani citizens, New Orleans citizens, everyone who will die from his rolling back environmental laws, consumer protections laws, women's health laws, and on and on and on

"Convoy".

Surrender or I kill you all, and your pets too!