Who is the most dreaded leader of all time?

fidel castro of that list. who else?

Your list is very twentieth century based.

What about Genghis/Attila/Ivan etc?

dreaded in what respect and by who?

Your list is very twentieth century based.

What about Genghis/Attila/Ivan etc?

Exactly my reason for "Other"

Then i voted other, Genghis was far more 'dreaded' than those guys because at least contemporaries felt they had some form of protection. Those folk at Merv had squat.

Though Ivan wasn't called the terrible for no reason.

Vlad the impaler as well.

See the problem with voting other? I would vote those three to be at least equal to Stalin/Mao etc if not more 'dreaded'.

Propably Ghengiz Khan, Stalin or Hitler.

The rest are a joke.

Probably Genghis Khan. His name invoke fear and awe from Germany to Korea.

Probably Genghis Khan. His name invoke fear and awe from Germany to Korea.

Genghis wasnt alive when the Mongols reached Poland...

The rest are a joke.

Idi Amin? A JOKE????

They used to refer to Idi Amin as The "Hitler of Africa"

Idi Amin? A JOKE????

They used to refer to Idi Amin as The "Hitler of Africa"
If Hitler had ruled Luxembourg, that'd be an apt comparison, but it's not. That doesn't change the fact that Idi Amin was a horrible person and a vicious murderer, but he wasn't fear-inspiring outside of the immediate vicinity of Uganda.

I would choose Stalin as the most dreaded leader in history, due to the terror he inspired in his entire country from the masses up to the top of government. Hitler was nowhere near as mental in his own country, and his atrocities were generally against foreigners or minorities- the general population in Germany and occupied western Europe were far less threatened than Stalin's people were.

Second place is tied between Hitler & Pol Pot- one had absolute quantity, one was worse in relative terms. Stalin had a huge dose of both, hence his being first.

I didn't vote Mao because he wasn't necessarily "dreaded". Certainly he caused a huge amount of death and suffering, but he himself was not solely responsible and the people in China worshipped him religiously. His state used Terror less than Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin and hence was a disasterous leader, but not a dreaded leader per se. He might make the top 5, but certainly is far from the top 3.

I voted for Huynh Tan Phat because I thought he was Pol Pot (after all, he should have been in the poll and I didn't think Pol Pot was his real name). What is he doing in Pol Pot's place? He shouldn't even be in the poll, he was hardly any worse than Diem.

As for the others, Fidel Castro is about as malevolent as any dictator and no moreso. He compares favourably with the various juntas the US supported and with most African governments today. Certainly better than the current Saudi regime. He hardly belongs in the top ten, or even the top thirty.
Saddam Hussein was a more worthy contender, but still no match for the "Big 3".
Osama Bin Laden is about as dreaded as Michael Collins was in 1920. Not quite up there with Stalin, I think.
Kim Jong-il is quite mad and might well make the top ten, however reliable information about his government is lacking.
As for Idi Amin, he was quite bad, but still just a typical junta and not a mtach for the Big 3.

(after all, he should have been in the poll and I didn't think Pol Pot was his real name).
Yup- his real name was the suitably villainous-sounding "Saloth Sar". "Pol Pot" was, IIRC, an abbreviation of "Political Potential". Not sure why he decided to adopt this pseudonym, but he wasn't exactly a rational chap...

Malcomn in the Middle..
Malcomn's mum..
/end thread :)

Because alot of People are complaining about it, Moderator, can you please chage the name to the Most Dreaded Leades of the 20th century?

Because alot of People are complaining about it, Moderator, can you please chage the name to the Most Dreaded Leades of the 20th century?

Man of Steel -- hands down.

I'd say Pol Pot - Wasn't it refugees from his Cambodia who were literally scared to death in their dreams?

Of all time, I'd pick Attila, but Genghis Khan and Tamerlane are in the same league.

For the 20th century, I'd pick Stalin.

Of all time, I'd pick Attila
Good point- any leader dubbed the "Scourge of God" would have to be pretty scary, and this was back in the days when people were still willing to believe that barbarians tribes were dog-headed demons, or whatever...

A few times I read a story about Stalin beginning a radio speech, only to be interrupted by the audience, who were afraid they weren't being sichophantic enough, and no one dared to stop for fear of being singled out as the less enthusiastic. To the point that Stalin himself stepped in to stop the madness, and commanded in his mic: now I'll count to three... at three, you all, stop!

Surreal.

Adolf Hitler is definately the most infamous leader of all time.

Attila and Ghengiz Khan are the first to come to mind.

Hilter, Stalin, and Mao were loved by many. Many on that list didn't paint themselves as dreaded leaders.

Hitler is generally seen as the epitome of evil. People like to sometimes claim Stalin was as bad, but he just isnt percieved as being as evil by most of the world. Putting Fidel Castro in there is either a joke or pathetic. Pol Pot belongs on the list too.

Well this is about the most dreaded leaders, not the most evil. So it's how they're seen by the rest of the world.

But then Fidel Castro? Dreaded? Not really.

Attila and Ghengiz Khan are the first to come to mind.

Hilter, Stalin, and Mao were loved by many. Many on that list didn't paint themselves as dreaded leaders.

People loved Atilla and Genghis too, how else would they have been able to assemble the army they did? or are you referring to non national sympathisers?

People loved Atilla and Genghis too, how else would they have been able to assemble the army they did?
That was different- their power, ruthlessness and skill inspired loyalty and respect, not the sort of personality-cult that was built up around leaders like Mao or Hitler.
I mean, you make a good point- no successful leader has ruled by fear alone- I just thought that it's worth keeping in mind that there's a difference between feudal/tribal loyalty and the personality cults of modern dictators.

People like to sometimes claim Stalin was as bad, but he just isnt percieved as being as evil by most of the world.
Most of the world does not perceive Stalin as evil? :eek:

Maybe I am way off here, but I was under the impression that most of the world is not a bunch of imbeciles.

Most of the world does not perceive Stalin as evil? :eek:

Maybe I am way off here, but I was under the impression that most of the world is not a bunch of imbeciles.

you are way off, I said "as evil"

you are way off, I said "as evil"

Ah. I would say I am off, but not way off. He quite clearly was at least as evil, probably more.

That was different- their power, ruthlessness and skill inspired loyalty and respect, not the sort of personality-cult that was built up around leaders like Mao or Hitler.
I mean, you make a good point- no successful leader has ruled by fear alone- I just thought that it's worth keeping in mind that there's a difference between feudal/tribal loyalty and the personality cults of modern dictators.

I disagree in that the power/ruthlessness etc inspired loyalty, i don't know much about Atilla but Genghis was very adept at making friends- Subedei etc were friends from Childhood or at least a very early age, so they must have been very able personally.

Though i do see what you mean about the difference in that the personality cults of modern dictators was emphasised on purpose through the media whilst you would only know Genghis/Atilla if you met them.

People loved Atilla and Genghis too, how else would they have been able to assemble the army they did? or are you referring to non national sympathisers?Atilla and Genghis were feared as dreaded warriors; they were people you did not want to cross, and were happy to have on your side. Ivan grozniy probably belongs in the same category.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao on the other hand had huge propaganda campaigns to promote their popularity. They painted themselves as saviors of the people. Stalin's death caused a stampede of mourners in Moscow at his funeral. You don't get that kind of reaction by being dreaded.

And if were talking about non nationals, then Stalin shouldn't really be considered, since his international impact was not a personal fear of him. People outside the USSR feared communism, but not Stalin personally.

Atilla and Genghis were feared as dreaded warriors; they were people you did not want to cross, and were happy to have on your side. Ivan grozniy probably belongs in the same category.


Genghis wasnt initially, he was respected and liked by a vast majority of people else how would he have managed to unite the mongols originally.

Perhaps we shouldn't count the opinion of their own people, but only those of everyone else. Genghis was and still is viewed by the Mongols as the great Father of their Nation. The Turks also view Attila favourably too (although most likely he wasn't Turkic).

Most of these guys seemed really great at the time...

Ah. I would say I am off, but not way off. He quite clearly was at least as evil, probably more.

Stalin is only most likely less evil because during world war 2 our propaganda machines labeled him as a brave warrior, and ally against the evil Germans. Plus Hitler is basically a personification of evil, while probaly a good quearter of people haven't heard of Stalin.

If my city was about to be invaded, the guy I'd least like to be heading the invaders would probably be either:
Genghis Khan: Assuming my city has offered any resistance, since that would assure we all died. At least with Mao or Stalin I could hope to keep my head down and wait for them to die.
Vlad the Impaler: Dying is one thing, the thought of being impaled makes me want to jump off a building right now just to ensure that nobody could ever do it to me.
Pol Pot/Mao: Even if I kept my head down, I'd have to deal with my society being systematically destroyed in order to cement their grip on power. This probably goes for several other tyrants too, but I'm more familiar with these two.

Vlad the Impaler: Dying is one thing, the thought of being impaled makes me want to jump off a building right now just to ensure that nobody could ever do it to me.

That shows how many dump myths surrounding him people believe in.

He did NOT impale innocent civilians. He did NOT. He impaled SOLDIERS, in order to bring fear to the enemies (which was just what "the enemies" were doing too, in the middle ages), and OUTLAWS, people SENTENCED to death.

That shows how many dump myths surrounding him people believe in.

He did NOT impale innocent civilians. He did NOT. He impaled SOLDIERS, in order to bring fear to the enemies (which was just what "the enemies" were doing too, in the middle ages), and OUTLAWS, people SENTENCED to death.

Yes but historical evidence supports that he did impale at least a couple of thousand soldiers. Either way its a reason to be dreaded!

Genhis Khan and Attila for me.

Yes but historical evidence supports that he did impale at least a couple of thousand soldiers. Either way its a reason to be dreaded!

Yes, but that's not something you'd be scared about if he was invading your city (although I doubt he ever invaded a foreign city, only take back his own, but that's a different discussion), since you are not a soldier, right? Because the post I was answering to works only if you are not a soldier, and if you aren't, then he won't impale you.

Of course, you could still die, since, well, your city is attacked. ;) But I wouldn't be more scared than the average level of despair you'd get when your city was invaded by a foreign army.

Yes, but that's not something you'd be scared about if he was invading your city (although I doubt he ever invaded a foreign city, only take back his own, but that's a different discussion), since you are not a soldier, right? Because the post I was answering to works only if you are not a soldier, and if you aren't, then he won't impale you.

Of course, you could still die, since, well, your city is attacked. ;) But I wouldn't be more scared than the average level of despair you'd get when your city was invaded by a foreign army.

I think if there was one side who impaled folk on sticks and killed folk and another side who just killed folk i know which side i'd pick! :)

what's so bad about impaling anyway?

what's so bad about impaling anyway?

Stake stuck so deep in your ass (or mouth, or vajoina) that it's coming out of in area of your jaw (or rectum) while you spend several days dying? ;) :rockon:

what's so bad about impaling anyway?

Apart from meaning a horrible painful death?

I think if there was one side who impaled folk on sticks and killed folk and another side who just killed folk i know which side i'd pick! :)
Then again, if I was not in danger of being impaled, I'd say both sides are equally bad. I wouldn't want to be in any side more than in the other.

I'd prefer the lack of impaling, especially if you were male you were more than likely going to be considered a soldier.

Genghis Khan was very much dreaded, but I think he is very misunderstood. Many people today see him as a brutal savage. Part of this comes from an image he himself tried to cultivate to scare people into submission. Compared to other armies of his day he was no more brutal (if not less, as torture was forbidden in the Mongol army). What made the Mongols so frightening was they were virtually invincible. I recommend the book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" by Jack Weatherford. It gives a good look into the man as well as the important era of "Pax Mongolica" that followed him.
Now Tamerlane was the quintessential savage barbarian.

Genghis Kahn

Maggie Thatcher, not so much for her policies, but her killer tuna breath.

That shows how many dump myths surrounding him people believe in.

He did NOT impale innocent civilians. He did NOT. He impaled SOLDIERS, in order to bring fear to the enemies (which was just what "the enemies" were doing too, in the middle ages), and OUTLAWS, people SENTENCED to death.

Ah, the old 'it only happens to bad people' routine. That's as bogus now as it was in the Middle Ages. Since I consider him to have been an unthinkably vile monster, I dare say he'd put me in the 'bad people' bracket given the chance.

I have to say that your comments are a fantastic illustration of the absurdity of nationalism. Anything that could lead otherwise relatively sane people to defend a beast who impaled his fellow human beings on giant metal spikes and left them to die in agony over a period of days is patently nonsense. Not that I made any reference to it whatsoever in my first post, but it doesn't matter in the slightest who he was inflicting this inhuman torture on.

In 1459, he had 30,000 of the German settlers (Saxons) and officials of the Transylvanian city of Kronstadt who were transgressing his authority impaled.
:salute:

a real hero...


:rolleyes:

Ah, the old 'it only happens to bad people' routine. That's as bogus now as it was in the Middle Ages. Since I consider him to have been an unthinkably vile monster, I dare say he'd put me in the 'bad people' bracket given the chance.

I have to say that your comments are a fantastic illustration of the absurdity of nationalism. Anything that could lead otherwise relatively sane people to defend a beast who impaled his fellow human beings on giant metal spikes and left them to die in agony over a period of days is patently nonsense. Not that I made any reference to it whatsoever in my first post, but it doesn't matter in the slightest who he was inflicting this inhuman torture on.

Nationalism? :lol: Funny, talking about someone that hates a good portion of the history of his own monster nation and who's biggest purpose in life right now is to get out of there. Would be interesting to actually meet a nationalist from this ****hole country.... :p You know nothing about me, so don't jump at conclusions about nationalism.

FYI, he was revered by many people not only after his death, but during his lifetime too. But who cares.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm out of this discussion.

In 1459, he had 30,000 of the German settlers (Saxons) and officials of the Transylvanian city of Kronstadt who were transgressing his authority impaled.
:salute:

a real hero...


:rolleyes:

Source or details? Although I said I'm out of this discussion, curiosity is a too big factor! ;)

(not that it's even possible to impale 30,000 people, have you seen a crowd of 30,000 people? :lol: First of all, he would need a way bigger number of people to be able to fight the 30,000.... If Wallachia ever had so many people at its northern border it would have kicked out the Ottomans out of Europe and rule the Balkans :lol: haha... what a joke)

Nationalism? :lol: Funny, talking about someone that hates a good portion of the history of his own monster nation.

FYI, he was revered by many people not only after his death, but during his lifetime too. But who cares.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm out of this discussion.



Source or details? Although I said I'm out of this discussion, curiosity is a too big factor! ;)

(not that it's even possible to impale 30,000 people, have you seen a crowd of 30,000 people? :lol: First of all, he would need a way bigger number of people to be able to fight the 30,000.... If Wallachia ever had so many people at its northern border it would have kicked out the Ottomans out of Europe and rule the Balkans :lol:)

Thousands were often impaled at a single time. Ten thousand were impaled in the Transylvanian city of Sibiu in 1460. In 1459, on St. Bartholomew’s Day, Vlad III had thirty thousand of the merchants and boyars of the Transylvanian city of Brasov impaled. One of the most famous woodcuts of the period shows Vlad Dracula feasting amongst a forest of stakes and their grisly burdens outside Brasov while a nearby executioner cuts apart other victims.
http://www.donlinke.com/drakula/vlad.htm#Atrocities
"The Historical Dracula," by Ray Porter
http://www.nndb.com/people/439/000113100/
On St. Bartholomew's Day, 1459, he impaled 30,000 merchants and officials from Brasov for alleged corruption. Afterwards he sat down for a picnic amongst the corpses. Their bodies were left to rot outside the city walls as a reminder of what would happen to any who disobeyed him. Later a famous woodcut commemorating the event was made.
His foreign policy was dominated by the continuous struggle to fend off the unwelcome expansionist "attentions" of his powerful neighbours and suzerains, the Hungarian kingdom to whom the autonomous principality of Transylvania north of the Carpathians belonged and the redoubtable Ottoman empire on its way of acquiring superpower status after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. To this purpose he used subtle Byzantine-style diplomacy successively allying himself with one or the other in the hope of playing them against each other while preserving the independence and neutrality of his country. This diplomatic manoeuvering was at times complemented or supplanted by ferocious borderland raiding like the incursions carried out in 1459-1460 against the south Transylvanian territories inhabited by German settlers (Saxons) with whom he had a trade dispute: towns and villages were burned to the ground and all their inhabitants - men, women and children running perhaps into tens of thousands - were impaled or otherwise executed, earning Dracula the Saxons' undying hate with no minor consequences for his posterity.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/rsa/_content/_public/_htm/dracula.shtml

when stanford says it so, it is so. Sorry Mirc. He was a dreaded cruel man.

when stanford says it so, it is so. Sorry Mirc. He was a dreaded cruel man.

You believe whatever the heck you want.

I've seen those first 2 sites before. I could bring as evidence the movie Van Helsing, that shows him even more dreaded and cruel. :lol:

FYI, the Saxons were the enemies of Vlad, and they were exactly those who made the pamphlets which made him famous. The Saxons were those who didn't allow the Romanians to live inside cities, forcing them outside city walls. Vlad's answer was only natural. Later, things changed. But you ignore the cruelties that he was responding to. He still did not impale 30,000, as that's an astronomical number. Think of the effort of building 30,000 sticks the size of a man! :lol:

You believe whatever the heck you want.

I've seen those first 2 sites before. I could bring as evidence the movie Van Helsing, that shows him even more dreaded and cruel. :lol:

But i didn't do that now, did I? :p

Hey, Leopold II slaughtered 5 million Congolese and I have no problem acnowledging that. you are just being willfully in denial. :goodjob:

Vlad's answer was only natural.

So i take you support ethnic cleansing? Ok, I'll remember that for the next gypsie thread! :cool:

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/1107/vladtheimpalerwoodcutax4.jpg

:goodjob:

So i take you support ethnic cleansing?

Heh? Don't get it. I just said his acts were a response to the discrimination against Romanians that has been happening in Transylvania for centuries. Where did I say I support his killings? :lol:

Oh, and try not to get things out of context next time, please? ;)

Heh? Don't get it. I just said his acts were a response to the discrimination against Romanians that has been happening in Transylvania for centuries. Where did I say I support his killings? :lol:

Oh, and try not to get things out of context next time, please? ;)

Choose please: either he didn't do it, or he just acted "natural". ;)

besides, you are contradicting your earlier post:
That shows how many dump myths surrounding him people believe in.

He did NOT impale innocent civilians. He did NOT. He impaled SOLDIERS, in order to bring fear to the enemies (which was just what "the enemies" were doing too, in the middle ages), and OUTLAWS, people SENTENCED to death.

So all Saxons were soldiers or outlaws?

Choose please: either he didn't do it, or he just acted "natural". ;)
Don't get it...

So all Saxons were soldiers or outlaws?

Nope, didn't say that. First, he did not kill all Saxons.But those who were coming in his lands. As I said, his answer was natural, but killing is still killing. Plus, all those people were not exactly innocent, you know... He was not more cruel in any way than his counterparts across Europe. FYI, the impaling technique was borrowed from the Ottoman Empire, where it was far more common.

My post was a response of a hypothetical attack of Vlad on another city - in this case, it was someone else coming to him.

Don't get it...



Nope, didn't say that. First, he did not kill all Saxons.But those who were coming in his lands. As I said, his answer was natural, but killing is still killing. Plus, all those people were not exactly innocent, you know... He was not more cruel in any way than his counterparts across Europe. FYI, the impaling technique was borrowed from the Ottoman Empire, where it was far more common.

My post was a response of a hypothetical attack of Vlad on another city - in this case, it was someone else coming to him.

mirc's three steps:
1: denial (we had that now)
2: euphemise (what you were doing)
3: blaming the muslems (but, but, the Ottomans were much worse!!!)
:goodjob:

Explain to me how an baby is not innocent.

mirc's three steps:
1: denial (we had that now)
2: euphemise (what you were doing)
3: blaming the muslems (but, but, the Ottomans were much worse!!!)
:goodjob:

Explain to me how an baby is not innocent.

Stop your ad hominem attack attempts and either answer my points or don't answer me at all.

I'm still denying what I was originally denying, BTW. And if you doubt he learned impaling from the Ottomans then whatever, it's hopeless anyway.

I don't get the last line at all, but whatever. I only get about half of what you're posting in this forum anyway.

Stop your ad hominem attack attempts and either answer my points or don't answer me at all.

I'm still denying what I was originally denying, BTW. And if you doubt he learned impaling from the Ottomans then whatever, it's hopeless anyway.

I don't get the last line at all, but whatever.

I'm just showing the follow-up of your posts.
If you can't handle that, i'm sorry for you.
And where did I ever doubt he learned it from the Ottomans? In fact i believe the whippings he had from the ottomans transformed him in a cruel, dreadful, wicked man.

Not all Saxons were innocent you know...
towns and villages were burned to the ground and all their inhabitants - men, women and children running perhaps into tens of thousands - were impaled or otherwise executed, earning Dracula the Saxons' undying hate with no minor consequences for his posterity.

I don't think he really displayed the chivalrity of the "order of the Dragon";)

and FYI: tell me why the Saxons were so mad on him if he didn't do anything. :p

Oh and I talked about this thread to Heretic Cata, my fav Romanian :love:
cata_ereticu@yahoo.com zegt:
he MIGHT be partially right ya know - at least that's what we're taught in history around here - that Vlad was not THAT bad ... a lot of people view him as a very good guy - very beneficial for our country - ethnic cleansing, death penalty for anything even petty thieves, killing rich people , killing poor people ... he was awsome :)

cata_ereticu@yahoo.com zegt:
i'm too lazy to post it - but if you would post a reference to it i would certainly not object ;) ...

Huỳnh Tấn Phát? We're supposed to dread Huỳnh Tấn Phát?????

I wanted to see who would respond to him!

Regarding the Hitler vs. Stalin debate... just imagine yourself as a WWII general, and you had to explain to your boss that the front lines have broken, and the enemy is exploiting a major blunder which you are mostly responsible for. Who would you rather have to answer to? Hitler, or Stalin? Anybody who knows a reasonable amount about the two would definitely rather go talk to Hitler.

fidel castro of that list. who else?

Are you joking?

Are you joking?
I don't think he is... Fidel Castro isn't exactly a tyrant. A controlling, egotistical dictator, but he's hardly in the league of Stalin.

Edit: Oh, crap, did I misunderstand that? I was thinking he meant "take Castro off that list", not "off that list I'd choose Castro"... I should learn to keep my big mouth shut... :blush:

The Dread Pirate Roberts. :p

Regarding the Hitler vs. Stalin debate... just imagine yourself as a WWII general, and you had to explain to your boss that the front lines have broken, and the enemy is exploiting a major blunder which you are mostly responsible for. Who would you rather have to answer to? Hitler, or Stalin? Anybody who knows a reasonable amount about the two would definitely rather go talk to Hitler.

Not nessecarily. aftert the initial errors of the war, Stalin learned to trust his generals and stopped interfering in decisions. Hitler, on the toher hand, was still ordering his soldiers to commit mass suicide for no good reason well into 1944

Are you joking?

what else?

1 Pol Pot,
2 Hitler,
3 Domenech...

Pol Pot just scares the living crap out of me. Seriously. Can someone show me a time and place more screwed up than Cambodia under him? Only the Holocaust really comes close. Some of what Stalin did was pretty messed up as well, but still not as bad as life under Pol Pot- plus a war and famine can explain some of what happened, though certainly justify nothing. Still. Pol Pot. Gah. Like a living horror film. I can't believe A. He lived so long, I'd murder him without flinching and B. I can't believe there are still, albeit small groups that revere him.

Castro and Bin Laden shouldn't be on that list, especially Castro. Murderous? Yes, but not in the league of the other guys up there.

No, not even vaguely, many Chinese, Saudi, Iranian and american Presidents have killed far more people than him and are not on the list. I agree West, Pol Pot was just mind-bogglingly random in his targets, how he could say with a straight face he was practising Marxism is beyond me

^ He wasn't that random, in fact he went for those who had received some kind of upper secondary education, which means he went for lawyers, doctors, engineers... The effects are still very visible nowadays (I was there last year). Cambodia really is the poorest most corrupt country I've visited so far. Do you know that for a few dollars (I think 50), the army will let you use their weapons for fun (kalashnikov, launch-grenade...) and if you add a few more bucks, you can shoot at animals...
Also I met travelers who were proposed kids for whatever they wanted...

^ He wasn't that random, in fact he went for those who had received some kind of upper secondary education, which means he went for lawyers, doctors, engineers... The effects are still very visible nowadays (I was there last year). Cambodia really is the poorest most corrupt country I've visited so far. Do you know that for a few dollars (I think 50), the army will let you use their weapons for fun (kalashnikov, launch-grenade...) and if you add a few more bucks, you can shoot at animals...
Also I met travelers who were proposed kids for whatever they wanted...

Yeah but he also went for peasants, babies, people with curly hair, people with glasses etc...

Yeah but he also went for peasants, babies, people with curly hair, people with glasses etc...

That happened around here too, actually (together with "people with beards"). And it was more recently too.

And yes, it's unbelievable that so little time has passed since those attrocities. :scared:

That happened around here too, actually (together with "people with beards"). And it was more recently too.

And yes, it's unbelievable that so little time has passed since those attrocities. :scared::eek::eek::eek:please explain this a little more:confused:

I only have 1 minute left at the Internet Cafe so I'll leave you with a link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineriad

My father was targeted by them too, as he has glasses AND a beard. Their famous slogans were "we work, don't think" and "moarte intelectualilor" - "death to the intellectuals".

No, not even vaguely, many Chinese, Saudi, Iranian and american Presidents have killed far more people than him and are not on the list. I agree West, Pol Pot was just mind-bogglingly random in his targets, how he could say with a straight face he was practising Marxism is beyond me
Yeah, I'm not calling Castro a saint, but leaders elsewhere were far more brutal then him. Though it can be argued they didn't do things quite as direct as he may have. Does that make it better? Not really, if they are still behind it.
I don't even think Pol Pot read Marx. And the US helped him out a bit, yes? And the damned commie pinko Vietnamese invaded his country. So yeah.

My father was targeted by them too, as he has glasses AND a beard. Their famous slogans were "we work, don't think" and "moarte intelectualilor" - "death to the intellectuals".

See, thats about as Orwellian as you can get. Disgusting. Freaky. Just plain wrong, no explanation really. Also weird that these 'communists' are so anti-intellectual when their theoretical foundations come from a quite a few members of the intelligista. That said that kind of thinking that went on in your country is scary 1 just because it happened and 2 because it happened so recently, which begs the question: will this happen again, and where?

West my understanding is that these miners were anti-communists - do I have that right Mirc?

West my understanding is that these miners were anti-communists - do I have that right Mirc?

No, quite the opposite. They were die-hard communists, opposing the elections (the first democratic elections which took place in decades). They were encouraged by politician Ion Iliescu, who was so powerful during the communist regime that Ceausescu himself "exiled" to Iasi, a place faraway north, because he was afraid of him. What's even more unbelievable is that this guy got to be president for 10 years after the revolution.

Then to keep in line with the unbelievable stuff, this guy, Ion Iliescu, tried to take the leader of some of those miners, Miron Cozma (who spent a few years in prison, as he was sentenced in 1998 to 18 years of prison for mass murder and instigating to violence) out of there only a few years ago. He gave him the pardon, which was then revoked. After months of uncertain situation, he was finally set free in 2007. And I can't believe that a person like him can walk free in a virtually borderless Europe, having served less than half of his sentence.


@West: yes, it's incredible that those things happened in the last decade, in Europe. My father told me it was probably the most terrifying moment of his life, when he was surrounded by 7 miners carrying bats, at a metro station. He escaped only because someone told those miners to come over to help beat a guy that was a reknowned intellectual, that happened to be near. That gave him time to run. And AFAIK, that guy went to coma for days, from the beating. I can't even think of what would have happened if my father would have been killed... in the last month of mother's pregnancy. :eek:

OK, sorry, I couldnt really understand it from the wiki entry. If thats how it happened, as told, its appalling. and pretty f**kin bizarre to have supposed hardcore communists beating up people for having beards (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro etc)

OK, sorry, I couldnt really understand it from the wiki entry. If thats how it happened, as told, its appalling. and pretty f**kin bizarre to have supposed hardcore communists beating up people for having beards (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro etc)

Yeah, it's almost funny, since most communist leaders have had at least some facial hair on them... it's completely bizarre, I know.

Those miners didn't anyway understand anything of the political situation. They knew - intellectuals = bad, we = good. Beard/glasses/long hair = intellectual. We have bats. We beat them.

mobs arent particularly know for their great reasoning.

mobs arent particularly know for their great reasoning.

Neither are their Bosses;););)

Neither are their Bosses;););)

yeah, that's the nature of things. :lol:

yeah, that's the nature of things. :lol:

Maybe you arent getting me, read it again and think of your favorite OT posters...

Malcomn in the Middle..
Malcomn's mum..
/end thread :)

I agree completly!:lol:

But i would say Gengis Khan, his army leveled large cities all over Asia.

Its gotta be Kim Jong il that crazy knucklehead is going blow up the woooooorlld.

Well enough of making fun of Charles Barkley, i would say Hitler or Stalin they both have quite frighting resumes. I wouldn't want to take away from others such as Attila or Khan as they were pretty bad ass too, though.

Voted "other" for Pol Pot.

Kim JongIl poses a minimal threat to America. DPRK is just a tiny passionate country that happens to have a cuckoo person as their leader :crazyeye: . When K J-I dies, that country's threat will be neutralized.

Pol Pot, killed like 25% of his own people or so, worse than any pro tobaco politician...wait they all get money from the tobaco lobby so they are ALL pro tobaco nm.

Pol Pot, killed like 25% of his own people or so, worse than any pro tobaco politician...wait they all get money from the tobaco lobby so they are ALL pro tobaco nm.

Pol Pot committed crimes against humanity in the hope that he would end up with utopia. The tobacco politicians knowingly approve of selling lethal substances to the masses in the hope they would end up with a lot of profit.

Think about it. ;)

genghis khan- at his peak the world was crapping itself and living in fear. Most people literally believed that the mongols would take over the world and withing a few hundred years the whole world (known world) would be mongolian.

Many people don't know much about Pol Pot, and instead vote for Hitler, Stalin, etc. But Pol Pot was a real monster.

Do to lack of pol pot I voted for the stupidest option.

My vote was for Stalin.

Now my knowledge might be flawed, but between Hitler and Stalin, I thought Hitler mostly executed certain kinds of people that were deemed "unfit" for his Third Reich. From what I remember of my world history, Stalin and his purges of the Communist Party eventually were just paranoia, with wild, false accusations and false confessions. were I a normal civilian under either Nazi or Soviet rule, I would have felt a little more fear from Stalin's "purging" that Hitler's executions.

Can we stop these threads?

Bet Genghis Khan could. Scary bloke.


;)

Without Kafka2 to set us all straight on the history of cruddy leaders, these threads are near worthless.

Pol Pot though, is the winner.

Other: Pol Pot.

Hitler for killing 12 million and preety much ruining Europe by starting a war

If one counts all the victims of WWII as well as Hitler's police state executions, his victims' numbers rise up to 85+ million.

Looks like Adolf Hitler is Currently the most Dreaded man in history.

Genghis Khan.

If one counts all the victims of WWII as well as Hitler's police state executions, his victims' numbers rise up to 85+ million.
Can't really include the Pacific war, though. That didn't really have anything to do with Hitler beyond the fact that his allies were involved. That knocks a good 20+ million off the total.

I personally am most afraid of Osama bin Laden right now.

Osama bin laden can kiss my Canadian ass.

I personally am most afraid of Osama bin Laden right now.

He won't do anything himself. He just gets one of his noble minions to do his dirty work. /cliche

Pol Pot, if no one's mentioned him.

If someone has, then good for you, jerk!

Don't worry about Bin Laden, he's been dead since the Tora Bora campaign.

Wha??? When was that???