[fleamailman]

OK, up to you then.

[Advertisements]

I will have to go with Satan for his deception in creating sin in the world.

[Mr. Green]

I will have to go with Satan for his deception in creating sin in the world.

[fleamailman]

Satan is a fallen angel and therefore not a person but I accept that he should be right up there.

[Mr. Green]

Depending on your religious preference Satan is a corporeal being in the same manner as Adam and Eve. He is cast in that role three times once while he was acting as the tempter of Job, again as a tempter of Christ and again when he inhabits the body of the Anti-Christ during the end of times. But then again this is all in accordance with personal religious views and is not ment to offend anybody.

[warriorscot]

Avoid religion, its not allowed on this site and while most here are intelignet enough to be able to maintain a civilised conversation on the matter not everyone is.

Worst person in History is a toughy orginisations would be easier people are harder, Hitler would be up there because of scale but he was mentally ill(our fault we gassed him in WW1 the reason why mustar gas is not a good weapon). Stalin did some pretty terrrible things, alot of the communist leaders have and still do, there are several popes ad cardinals that could be considered evil but often thats perspective.

[emery]

Edward Gein. Not the worst, but pretty nasty. He was a gross killer. Hung up his victoms on meat hooks and then gutted them etc..

Gross psycho.

[Rawe]

I have to go with Hitler. He was sick person. Completely.

Guess I don't even have to say the reason.

[admin]

For sheer number of people killed, and his impact on the modern world, it's hard to argue with Hitler.

However, there were times that were far more brutal. For instance, this guy: Vlad the Impaler .

More than anything else, the historical Dracula is known for his exceeding cruelty. Impalement was Dracula's preferred method of torture and execution, which he had learned in his youth as a prisoner of the Turks. Dracula usually had 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.

As expected, death by impalement was slow and painful. Victims sometimes endured for hours or days. Dracula often had the stakes arranged in various geometric patterns. The most common pattern was a ring of concentric circles in the outskirts of a city that constituted his target. The height of the spear indicated the rank of the victim. The corpses were often left decaying for months.

Thousands were often impaled at a single time. 10,000 were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu (where Dracula had once lived) in 1460. The previous year, on Saint Bartholomew's Day (in August), Dracula had 30,000 of the merchants and officials of the Transylvanian city of Braşov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Braşov, while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.

Impalement was Dracula's favourite but by no means his only method of torture. The list of tortures employed by the prince is extensive: nails in heads, cutting off of limbs, blinding, strangulation, burning, cutting off of noses and ears, mutilation of sexual organs (especially in the case of women), scalping, skinning, exposure to the elements or to animals, and boiling alive.

[emery]

Thanks for that nice read, Admin, just before bedtime

Safe dreams..

[dsenette]

i agree with admin....he is indeed the worst person ever....he was not a nice guy.... ghengis (sp?) khan wasn't exactly a friendly fellow either

[Angelia]

My first answer would of been Hitler but he's already mentioned several times.

I guess I would say Bin Ladden.

Why?

I guess his actions hit close to home.

Edited by Angelia, 10 July 2006 - 03:26 PM.

[fleamailman]

Was Pol Pot worse than Hitler or Stalin?

Is it the numbers or way someone kills people which make that person the worst?

Is it the fact that the person is recent that makes then worse than someone doing the same thing Ivan the terrible, or the Mongal empire, Ceasar treatment of the Gauls, Nero treatment of the Christians, etc.,

[admin]

The fact they're more recent makes them more recent in memory. It happens all the time, whether discussing sports figures, politicians, or weather. The more recent events are unfairly represented.

Pol Pot was number three for me. He killed 1/4 of HIS OWN people (2 million). Many in mass graves they were forced to dig themselves, and then buried alive.

[Facedown98]

I have to agree... Hitler... Killed many people for such stupid reasoning... Stalin was no angel himself... Both of which I'm sure got their just reward in the end

[warriorscot]

Well the most evil men are the ones who know they are doing evil yet continue to do it, Hitler and bin laden arguably arent as evil as many because they believed what they were doing was right, Bin laden himself in many respects could be considered a good man for his past deeds in life not his recent ones even those in historical comparison arent as bad as some in history certainly not good but not evil either in the kind of ways many were he follows his beliefs as to who his enemy is and does it not with malicousness but in a manner conducive to a war he believes in.

Old Vlad certainly was evil, alot of rulers at that time were cruel men, but in those times you had to be cruel to survive, what gives more modern examples greater poignancy is that they lived in times where survival wasnt dependant on ferocity or cruelty. Stalin was actually worse than hitler in many ways Hitler was truly insane but his malice was directed towards groups that at the time were universally disliked by many there was a twisted logic it was only afterwards when people saw what he did with the "unwanted elements" that it was regretted not by Hitler but he was totally of his rocker in most respects. Stalin on the other hand by all acount was sound of mind when he sent millions to the stalags for being differently minded to him or being politically active or even just because you looked at him funny as you walked down the corridor, Stalin killed millions with a sound mind but no one bothered and to extent no one does because unlike Hitler he cleaned up after himself i would say he was more evil because he knew what he was doing.