History's most Brutal Dictators?

[FoxURA]

Somes it up pretty much. Saddam was bad, but you could find dozens of two-bit dictators who were just as bad. If not for the 2003 invasion, he would be a footnote in history in another hundred years.
Hitler will be remembered MUCH longer then that.

Actually, Saddam still had a desire to conquer the Mid-East and control most of the worlds tapped oil supply. If he hadn't been taken out he would have tried to do it again... Only by that time he would employ widespread use of terrorist tactics and WMDs making a whole lot harder to stop.

Just think of him of along the lines of what might have happened if not for people like Nevil Chamberlain.

 

[m4gill4]

Christopher Columbus. His genocide was successful, and the people under his dominion no longer exist. The most evil man in history.

People like him make me want to believe in hell.

For more information, find A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. You only have to read the first 20 or so pages to see what I mean.

 

[austin2359]

I'm not advocating taking out Saddam. He was evil, but the people he ruled over deserved it.

Viennese? Is this a typo?

Yes, it was a typo.

 

[obliterate]

I'm not advocating taking out Saddam. He was evil, but the people he ruled over deserved it.

How can you say that?

 

[austin2359]

When I think about it, Saddam killed to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, as he was a more secular leader...and I prefer Saddam to a clerical regime.

 

[Adler17]

Austin, that was the reason why the US tanks stopped before Baghdad. He was a ruthless tyrant, but yet better than the mess now.

Adler

 

[luiz]

Christopher Columbus. His genocide was successful, and the people under his dominion no longer exist. The most evil man in history.

People like him make me want to believe in hell.

This is ridiculous. Columbus behaved the way pretty much any other european of the time would have. There is absolutely no indication that Columbus was particularly bad, let alone the most evil man in history.

For more information, find A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. You only have to read the first 20 or so pages to see what I mean.

Two good advices, if you want reliable information:

1- Avoid anything named "People's etc"
2- Avoid Howard Zinn

 

[m4gill4]

From wikipedia:

The Court appointed Francisco de Bobadilla, a member of the Order of Calatrava; however, his authority stretched far beyond what Columbus had requested. Bobadilla was given total control as governor from 1500 until his death in 1502. Arriving in Santo Domingo while Columbus was away, Bobadilla was immediately peppered with complaints about all three of the Columbus brothers: Christopher, Bartolomé, and Diego. Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian, states: "Even those who loved him [Columbus] had to admit the atrocities that had taken place."[18][19]

As a result of these testimonies, Columbus, upon his return and without being allowed a word in his own defense, was clapped with manacles on his arms and chains on his feet and cast into prison to await return to Spain. He was 53 years old.

On October 1, 1500, Columbus and his two brothers, likewise in chains, were sent back to Spain.

From Zinn *who cites his sources... where are yours?*:

http://www.newhumanist.com/md2.html

eh comrade? Has olvidado el pasado? O eres un juero?

 

[luiz]

From wikipedia:

The Court appointed Francisco de Bobadilla, a member of the Order of Calatrava; however, his authority stretched far beyond what Columbus had requested. Bobadilla was given total control as governor from 1500 until his death in 1502. Arriving in Santo Domingo while Columbus was away, Bobadilla was immediately peppered with complaints about all three of the Columbus brothers: Christopher, Bartolomé, and Diego. Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian, states: "Even those who loved him [Columbus] had to admit the atrocities that had taken place."[18][19]

As a result of these testimonies, Columbus, upon his return and without being allowed a word in his own defense, was clapped with manacles on his arms and chains on his feet and cast into prison to await return to Spain. He was 53 years old.

On October 1, 1500, Columbus and his two brothers, likewise in chains, were sent back to Spain.

From Zinn *who cites his sources... where are yours?*:

http://www.newhumanist.com/md2.html

eh comrade? Has olvidado el pasado? O eres un juero?

Jesus Christ, and what exactly in the above text is even a hint that he was the worst man in history? If you read that and conclude that we are talking about someone worse than Hitler or Stalin, I conclude that you are crazy.

As for your question, I am not the one who has forgotten the past. This Columbus demonization trend, that has gone way too far, is ridiculous and an insult to History. It's just a pathetic attempt of the Latin American left to create a myth of a perfect, socialist pre-Columbian american society, which of course never existed. Some of the most ruthless and bloodthirsty societies ever encountered were amerindian societies.

Columbus was not particularly evil, he was a man of his time.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They agreed on pretty much everything. So the real question is, who was more insane? Many people say that Hitler was crazy while Goebbels was a cold calculist, and hence Goebbels was the worst. But he always striked me as a fanatical loony on the same league as Hitler as far as dementia goes.

I very much like this trend of labeling the Nazis as crazy, insane, demented or mentally ill. For two reasons. First, is the implication that evil is in itself evidence of neurodivergence, and that therefor people who are mentally ill are the source of evil in this world (something the Nazis themselves would probably agree on). One is perfectly capable of being a monster while maintaining ones sanity.
The second is that it absolves the Nazis of there crimes. If you are going to say that Hitler or Goebbels were insane, that means you have to accept that they were not in control of their actions. There are very few dictators who can actually claim this (Idi Amin and Hong Xiuquan being amongst them). The fact was is that Hitler and Goebbels possessed a conscience just as much as you or I, but they adopted an ideology which allowed them to create massive evil for this world.

A better example of the dichotomy posed also would be Goebbels versus Goering. Goering was not an ideological Nazi, in fact he was not even anti-semitic. None the less he was involved in the holocaust at the highest levels, having read and approved the results of the Wanzee Conference. However he did so out of cold motivation for his own political advancement.

Goebbels comparatively was a true believer in the Nazi Ideology. It was Goebbels alone of the "big three" of the inner circle that stayed with Hitler until the very end. He too bore responsibility for the Holocaust, which he believed was morally justified.

So its always been a puzzling dillema of who is worse then the other.

 

[luiz]

I very much like this trend of labeling the Nazis as crazy, insane, demented or mentally ill. For two reasons. First, is the implication that evil is in itself evidence of neurodivergence, and that therefor people who are mentally ill are the source of evil in this world (something the Nazis themselves would probably agree on). One is perfectly capable of being a monster while maintaining ones sanity.
The second is that it absolves the Nazis of there crimes. If you are going to say that Hitler or Goebbels were insane, that means you have to accept that they were not in control of their actions. There are very few dictators who can actually claim this (Idi Amin and Hong Xiuquan being amongst them). The fact was is that Hitler and Goebbels possessed a conscience just as much as you or I, but they adopted an ideology which allowed them to create massive evil for this world.

A better example of the dichotomy posed also would be Goebbels versus Goering. Goering was not an ideological Nazi, in fact he was not even anti-semitic. None the less he was involved in the holocaust at the highest levels, having read and approved the results of the Wanzee Conference. However he did so out of cold motivation for his own political advancement.

Goebbels comparatively was a true believer in the Nazi Ideology. It was Goebbels alone of the "big three" of the inner circle that stayed with Hitler until the very end. He too bore responsibility for the Holocaust, which he believed was morally justified.

So its always been a puzzling dillema of who is worse then the other.

I wouldn't call Hitler or Goebbels completely insane, and I think both should be held responsible for the actions.

There are various degrees of mental problems, and I'm sure we can all agree that Hitler was not exactly a shining exemple of mental health. He had issues. But that does not excuse him in any way, as ultimately he was still in control of his decisions.

What I was trying to say is that I don't buy into the notion that Hitler was "less bad" than other nazi leaders because he was "crazy". If we call him crazy, than certainly we would have to call many high-ranking nazis the same.

 

[obliterate]

When I think about it, Saddam killed to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, as he was a more secular leader...and I prefer Saddam to a clerical regime.

In the Iraq-Iran war Saddam sent civilians across minefeilds to clear them so his army to cross safely. Needless to say they all died. When Iraq was invaded (not by America) he sent unarmed civilians at the enemy to slow them down so his army could retreat. You can't say he was a good leader. And don't give me the . .. .. .. . that he killed to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. He would kill for any reason no matter how small.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Columbus sailed across the ocean blue in 1492 (even thuogh some other horned-helmet people and others beat him to it)... and then his continent's men did the rest of the work.

 

[Traitorfish]

Actually, Saddam still had a desire to conquer the Mid-East and control most of the worlds tapped oil supply. If he hadn't been taken out he would have tried to do it again... Only by that time he would employ widespread use of terrorist tactics and WMDs making a whole lot harder to stop.

Not going to argue with your basic point, and I'm certainly not going to approach the WMDs issue, but there's little evidence to suggest that Saddam was linked to any significant terrorist organisations or made use of such tactics. In fact, most prominent Middle-Eastern terrorist groups, being Islamic fanatics, despised his regime as much as they despised the US. Terrorist organisations only became a significant force in Iraq once Saddam was deposed.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually, Saddam still had a desire to conquer the Mid-East and control most of the worlds tapped oil supply. If he hadn't been taken out he would have tried to do it again... Only by that time he would employ widespread use of terrorist tactics and WMDs making a whole lot harder to stop.

Just think of him of along the lines of what might have happened if not for people like Nevil Chamberlain.

I really can't see your argument here. Saddam did not have a power base or the capacity to take over the Middle East and build anything comparable to the Nazis. Just look at the Iran-Iraq war...in eight years, he wasn't even able to hold his own against one neighboring Muslim state without weapons from the US. Traitorfish is also right on the lack of terrorist love for Saddam. Surprisingly, he managed to keep that country running, despite being part of a ruling Sunni class over a majority of Shi'a. He certainly did a better job with the place than the quagmire there right now.

On Columbus: He's no saint, and was known to kill off Native Americans, but the Pope said it was all good to slaughter the Natives if they wouldn't convert, right? The Papacy could arguably have some good candidates for this discussion, now that I think about it.

 

[LightSpectra]

but the Pope said it was all good to slaughter the Natives if they wouldn't convert, right?

Uh, no?

The Papacy could arguably have some good candidates for this discussion, now that I think about it.

The Papacy never had any real power. It would be like nominating a lieutenant in the Nazi army.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There was a long time where the papacy had a great deal of power in Europe.

 

[luiz]

Columbus killed Indians in the same manner that pretty much all 16th Century european rulers of the Americas did. And the Indians killed europeans, and indians too. He certainly was no saint, but the most evil human in history? Ridiculous.

BTW the Catholic Church was instrumental in avoiding the enslavement of the indians in the same proportion as it happened to the africans. The real shame for them is that they did not extend their protection to the africans, because for the most part the Church was far more benign towards the indians than the secular authorities. Of course today it is trendy to accuse the CC of "destroying" the native religion and culture, which is a pathetic accusation if we look at the alternatives from an historical POV. Plus the missionaries thought that they were saving their souls, and indeed many sacrificed their lives to do what they believed was right.

 

[FoxURA]

I really can't see your argument here. Saddam did not have a power base or the capacity to take over the Middle East and build anything comparable to the Nazis. Just look at the Iran-Iraq war...in eight years, he wasn't even able to hold his own against one neighboring Muslim state without weapons from the US.

The thing about Saddam is that he wasn't stupid. After the first Gulf War he realized that traditional warfare wouldn't work against the United States or its allies. His solution, A-symmetric warfare, warfare based not upon the idea of bringing your best equipped well trained troops but using his and run tactics in conjunction with remote bombs and other similar methods, in an attempt to circumvent the technological advantage of his opponents. Hence his emphasis on WMD development as well as building closer ties with terrorists organizations. Essentially the way Saddam saw it, as well as the way terrorist and fanatical regimes is the enemy of my enemy is my friend regardless if they were enemies before or not. It all boils down to whoever is the bigger target.

Not going to argue with your basic point, and I'm certainly not going to approach the WMDs issue, but there's little evidence to suggest that Saddam was linked to any significant terrorist organisations or made use of such tactics. In fact, most prominent Middle-Eastern terrorist groups, being Islamic fanatics, despised his regime as much as they despised the US. Terrorist organisations only became a significant force in Iraq once Saddam was deposed.

ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq
Link.
dated: 3/23/'06
Excerpt:"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia...

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor."

 

[FoxURA]

I really can't see your argument here. Saddam did not have a power base or the capacity to take over the Middle East and build anything comparable to the Nazis. Just look at the Iran-Iraq war...in eight years, he wasn't even able to hold his own against one neighboring Muslim state without weapons from the US.

The thing about Saddam is that he wasn't stupid. After the first Gulf War he realized that traditional warfare wouldn't work against the United States or its allies. His solution, A-symmetric warfare, warfare based not upon the idea of bringing your best equipped well trained troops but using his and run tactics in conjunction with remote bombs and other similar methods, in an attempt to circumvent the technological advantage of his opponents. Hence his emphasis on WMD development as well as building closer ties with terrorists organizations. Essentially the way Saddam saw it, as well as the way terrorist and fanatical regimes is the enemy of my enemy is my friend regardless if they were enemies before or not. It all boils down to whoever is the bigger target.

ABC News article about a Bin Laden contact meeting with Iraq
Link.
dated: 3/23/'06
Excerpt:"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia...

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor."

On this PBS web page in an article about the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak that trained domestic and foreign fighters for the purpose of attacking American interests. Take a look at the article. There are two things that you need to notice. 1st, the man worked at the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak and is therefore a source of firsthand information. 2nd, his story takes place while Saddam was still in charge of Iraq. Link.

Excerpt:

"To you, then, the likely suspect here is the government of Iraq and Saddam in all this terrorism. And yet we're looking the wrong way?

I assure you, and I'm going to keep assuring you, that all these things are obvious. I don't know why you don't see it. When we were in Iraq, Saddam said all the time, even during the Gulf War, "We will take our revenge at the proper time." He kept telling the people, "Get ready for our revenge."

We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes, to put explosives. How could anybody not think this is not done by Saddam? Even the grouping, those groups were divided into five to six people in the group. How about the training on planes? Some of these groups were taken and trained to drive airplanes at the School of Aviation, northern of Baghdad ... .Everything coincides with what's happening.

In addition to that, we heard in the news about meeting some of those hijackers with the Iraqi intelligence people in Prague, and even getting money to get trained on flying airplanes in the United States from the Iraqi intelligence.

[Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for] Osama bin Laden?

Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.

They're just people.

Yes.

Who clearly wanted to ... or were interested in doing terror, becoming terrorists?

This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world. ..."

Yeah... That's why I think that if Saddam wasn't knocked off he would work his way up to the top of the list. All indications are that the guy was working on planning something that would have made 9/11 look like child's play.