ITT: Most Evil People Throughout History

...

Other urls found in this thread:

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0108-seaman
cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-over-sainthood/
congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=qpkQfyLnO8s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Tyler, you know who he is.

OP/thread

No.

> inb4 someone posts Churchill

Yes

...

...

>literally liberated Kuwait
>only problem was spreading that freedom to Iraq and raising taxes

Muh Bush "crime family"

PS I voted Trump you douche

>Mother Theresa was worse than Josef Stalin, who literally imprisoned people because he felt like it
>Mother Theresa was worse than Mao Tsedong, who literally let tens of millions of people die under his reign because of his autism
>Mother Theresa was worse than Pol Pot, who murdered people for the crime of wearing eyeglasses

Yeah fuck off

Marx

edgy

>restored a despotic monarch to an oil colony

Oh what a hero.

>calling Stalin a mass-murderer is edgy

>as opposed to elevating a genocidal mass murdering dictator to a position where he could control global oil reserves and use them to fuck over every free democracy across the globe

Stay butthurt Uday

>genocidal

OY KAKA, ITS ANUDDA ANFAL

Get fucked, Jeb

Even worse than a Jew, an Albanian.

>Jeb

Lmao, you know Trump is an Iran hawk and the most pro-Israel president we've ever had, right? Stay mad /pol/cuck. I'm a neocon and I'm loving this election.

where is the evidence?

Katyn massacre
Great purge
Holodomor

>unironically being a neocon

Kill yourself, Jew.

Trump's not a hawk, he's gonna let Putin rein in the burgers and keep Assad in power. Sorry, Israel!

>Holdomor
where is the evidence?
>great purge
what was wrong with it?

So an asshole then, well fuck you very much asshole.

Explain to me why hitlers crimes are worse than stalins?

give me evidence of Stalins
>Explain to me why hitlers crimes are worse than stalins
killing people because of their race (something they can't help) is worse then killing someone because of their political beliefs

Jews are a religion not a race, that's why you have white Jews, black Jews, brown Jews. You can convert to Judaism, you can't convert to a race. Jews are a religion.

Stalin picked on people for their race, specifically the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Cossacks. He deported them en masse to die in labour camps because of their ethnicity.

Jews is an ethnicity/race too dumbass (technically several).
you have to have a jewish mother to be considered a jew and so on.

Hitlers antisemitism was more based on race then it was on religion. he whent after racial jews that didn't believe in judaism too

he didn't only kill jews dude

Who are you quoting?

Him and his whole family.

there was a prophecy about their reign, and it was literally called 'the age of satan'.

>Be Schlomo
>Auschwitz 1944
>Fucking hungry, can't work
>They put me in a special line
>Marched into showers
>Something seems odd
>Other Jews start praying
>I stand there
>Guard asks why I'm not praying
>"Oh, I'm actually a non-practicing Jew. I don't believe in the religion."
>Guards immediately halt executions
>Let me out, apologise
>Turns out they only kill people because of their religion
>Guards feed me Bratwurst whilst we look through the panels at religious morons dying and laugh

Why was mother Theresa evil? Sure, she may have taken the "holier than thou" attitude to pathological levels, but evil??

OP

Correct
Incorrect
Correct
Correct

Doesn't say that anywhere in the OP.

She took 10s in millions and donation and made her patients sleep in shitty hammocks, giving them reused needles without even sterilising them.

She was evil incarnate.

The claim of masochism is a warping of the traditional Catholic view either done out of ignorance or bias and, along with the lack of modern palliative care in the Missionaries of Charity's hospices, come together to form the popular and entirely fictitious view of Mother Teresa as a villainous monster. It's all conjecture. Redemptive suffering is not something that you impose on other people.

As for her disposition on the poor, I'd recommend her private writings where the Oxford Review says "Page after page documents her perpetual sorrow with the miseries of the poor, the "least of all God's creatures" living in unimaginable "holes"". I'm not sure how someone who is secretly like that could also secretly be a masochist.

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0108-seaman

And, to end, there's the strange popularity in using Hitchens' book The Missionary Position as a basis for claims in popular media and in biographies despite Hitchens book being a deliberate hitpiece. And this is undeniable as Hitchens was asked by the church to be a hitpiece so to fulfill the role of "Devil's Advocate" in the canonization process for the, now, St. Teresa.

cbsnews.com/news/the-debate-over-sainthood/

Like most things with Hitchens, he does a great job at sounding intelligent and having a sense of morality but still being fucked up in his arguments.

She's claimed to have outright denied modern palliative care from the dying with the express intent of trying to get them to suffer in a masochistic sense. This is extremely easy to shoot down given that modern palliative care was simply unavailable in India, let alone the West Bengal.

With reference to India generally, see, e.g., Rajagopal MR and and Joranson DE, "India: Opioid availability - An update", The Journal of Pain Symptom Management, Vol. 33 (2007) 615-622, passim. As late as 2001, researchers could write that "pain relief is a new notion in [India]", and "palliative care training has been available only since 1997" - Rajagopal MR, Joranson DE, and Gilson AM (2001), "Medical use, misuse and diversion of opioids in India", The Lancet, Vol. 358, July 14, 2001, pp. 139-143 at p.139.

With reference to West Bengal specifically, it was only in 2012 that the state government finally amended the applicable regulations simplifying "the process of possession, transport, purchase, sale and import of inter-state of morphine or any preparation containing morphine by 'Recognized Medical Institution'." See: International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care, Newsletter, 2012 Vol. 13, No. 12 (December); and for a brief regulatory overview for the previous year, see M.R. Rajagopal interview with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, April, 2011 India: The principle of balance to make opioids accessible for palliative care.

You're either dumb, new, or pretending to be

Why didn't she use the millions in donations to buy beds instead of simply opening up new nunneries?

>being an apologist for one of the most wicked people in history

Wow, that's some great christian morality you have there, devil-worshiper!

There is a lot of misinformation about Saint Teresa, especially coming from atheists (or I suppose more specifically those who adore Hitchens). I won't go into vast details, but here is basic rundown of the arguments and their rebuttals in the order that hey are presented in the article.

>One. Mother Teresa was known to be friends with some less than savory characters.

Ultimately, she was an Albanian nun who probably did trust people a little too easily, and probably didn't always have the greatest knowledge on politics. As for the whole Keaton thing, I'd say the reason she never replied was probably because the organization already spent it, and she didn't want to suddenly pull funding from somewhere else, I still say she should have paid it back, but there's more going on here than the author implies. Oh, and as for the Contras? I really can't find her saying anything about them, in fact the first search result for "Mother Teresa and the Contras" is this very same article. Interpret that as you will.

>Two. The hospitals Mother Teresa Ran were ill equipped despite the millions of dollars she had.

This one is blatantly false because she never claimed run hospitals, she ran hospices, places that were made just so the poor could die in a nice clean bed. No wonder why they were distressed at the quality of medical care, because that wasn't the mission in the first place. It is true that they didn't give that many pain killers, but the reason for that is twofold: 1. Indian culture had a taboo against painkillers, many Indians (like Mother Teresa) thought that good things could come about through pain, so they were fine with it. And 2. The laws of India at the time heavily restricted strong painkillers like morphine to the point where 6 licences were required for one dose, and that was for doctors, never mind what hoops nuns would have to jump through to get them. So basically people are criticizing Mother Teresa for not using a tool that was ILLEGAL in the country she was operating in. And the million dollars can be explained when I go back to Mother Teresas Mission: to help as many poor people as possible die with dignity. So it is true that she could have used the money build a few hospitals, while letting many die in the streets. Or try and help as many people as she could die with dignity, perhaps at the cost of high quality medical care. Quantity over quality, if you will.

>Three. She opposed birth control, gay marriage, abortion, and divorce.

She was a pious Catholic. Honestly people bringing this up as evidence against her sainthood is laughable. Moving on.

>what was wrong with it?
Killing thousands of people for absolutely no reason at all and crippling your army

>Four. She sought out high quality medical care when she was dying, while leaving others in poor conditions.

Yeeeeah, this one is easily defeated when you here the testimony from the very people that treated her. In fact, she refused medical treatment fairly often, even when she had Pneumonia (I know these are both from the same woman, but I know there is other testimony from some of her other doctors saying that she literally tried to escape the Hospital a few time). Most of the medical treatment that she was given was either at the repeated pleas from those who were close to her, or by her doctors without her consent. She certainly "didn't seek it out" as Hitchens claims.

>Five. Mother Teresa Secretly Baptized non-Christians.

I actually can't find a lot of info on this one, but as far as I remember from an article a while ago, the ex-volunteer who talked about baptisms in the article, Susan Shields, may have had some personal motivations for making the Missionaries of Charity look bad. Don't quote me on that though.

>Six. Mother Teresa glorified pain and suffering as a virtue and denied some patients care so they could suffer.

Not really any evidence for this one either, aside from the claims of Hitchens. But most of that comes mainly from a general misunderstanding of redemptive suffering in the Catholic Church. While redemptive suffering is seen as a good thing, it's not something that you induce on other people. Basically Mother Teresa message was one of "turning lemons into lemonade", rather than that of purposely making people suffer.
And I feel like the authors true intentions when writing this accidentally come out in his closing words.

>If she wished to create a convent whose mission is to glorify human suffering, then it is for Catholics to decide whether they want to support that mission. Secularists and humanists, however, should rethink whether we want to support an effort that is so manifestly at odds with all that we stand for.

The author is basically saying that even if the Missionaries of Charity did nothing wrong, and did help the poor as described, secularists and humanists should still be hesitant because how there is a ideological shift between the two organizations. Let's just say that it shows some bias.

>set up hospices for the downtrodden and forgotten dregs of society so they can at least die with dignity
>'wtf why didn't she cure them????'

>that were made just so the poor could die in a nice clean bed

LMAO

epic meme

those nice little plank beds lmao

>why don't Catholic missionaries spend their donations the way I want them to?
Because fuck you, that's why.

Also hammocks > shitty cots

>muh money

How very Christian of you.

People don't understand how awesome hammocks are. I'm actually considering getting rid of my bed and getting one of those free standing ones because they're supposed to be really good for your back. I started camping with one and I normally have to sleep on my side and end up tossing and turning throughout the night but not with the hammock.

They didn't sleep in hammocks. They slept on plank like beds on the floor.

Your justification is rather sickening.

Oh I'm sorry, is it your donations in church that are accomplishing Catholic charity work?

No?

Then you have no say in how its spent. Go start your own charity and then you can decide how to spend the donations received.

Atheists are never one to let facts get in the way of their views.

Now you are applying our western levels of comfort minimums to the third world. Maybe it sucked, but maybe being able to live out your last days in a shelter where people could care for you was leagues better than dying in the streets.

>"I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it."

Winston Churchill

Sick individual.

I'm sure you could have done much better in that time and place.

Yes, its so difficult to purchase bed frame and mattresses

Of course yeah. It would have been a very simple matter in Calcutta.

He didn't kill more people than Hitler. Hitler is responsible for a lot more than 6 million deaths.

Hitler deliberately organized the killing of millions of civilians. There is no evidence or indication of Stalin did the same.

>but but Holodomor

Wasn't deliberate. Negligence is not the same as mass murder.

Good answer

*citation needed*

If she was just a crazy masochist who wanted to cause suffering then why did she bother helping anyone out to begin with?

It's all available in video footage, buddy.

Who said she helped anyone?

This has to be one of the dumbest boards I've ever visited. I know what to expect when I come here but I still end up being surprised at it.

>People don't agree with my religiously-motivated views
>Therefore they must be stupid

Checkmate, atheists!

...

He's not actively evil, just stupid. Bannon, on the other hand...

Why is Bannon evil?

>You gotta go after their families
>I'd bring back waterboarding, and I´d bring back hell of a lot more than waterboarding
>If she has an abortion, she´s got to be punished
>Lock her up
>Why can't we use our nukes
>Saddam Hussien, he knew how to keep order

Yeah, not evil, sure

I don't see how any of that makes someone an evil person. It's just somebody with different views than you and I think you're ascribing malice where not appropriate. If abortion is murder and against the law it makes complete sense to punish people who break the law. Terrorists don't live in a vacuum and they often become terrorists because of their upbringing. I'm sure there's many cases of parents encouraging their kids to become ISIS members so it makes sense to target their families in the fight against terrorism. Because you immediately ascribe the worst possible motivation to Trump you take this to mean that we should bomb innocent people because a member of their family is a terrorist. He did not say this though, he could just as easily mean that we should target families with proactive policing and identify houses that may produce future terrorists. I could go on but I think I've made my point. Just consider the possibility that your political opposition has good motives.

>If abortion is murder and against the law
It's neither.

>terrorists don't live in a vacuum and they often become terrorists because of their upbringing. I'm sure there's many cases of parents encouraging their kids to become ISIS members
[citation needed]

>Because you immediately ascribe the worst possible motivation to Trump
"If you just ignore reality, Trump looks much better!"
"He was clearly talking about a completely fictional situation instead!"

>Just consider the possibility that your political opposition has good motives.
>Why can't we use our nukes

and stay out

kill yourself my man

In the United States abortion is legally defined as murder. The reason people aren't prosecuted is because there are exceptions written into the law, but these exceptions don't change the fact that abortion is legally murder.

congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

How's this for an easy proof that there some parents who encourage their kids to become ISIS members?

youtube.com/watch?v=qpkQfyLnO8s

The reason Trump refuses to say he won't use nukes is because that options needs to be on the table for negotiation purposes. It would be ridiculous for any president to say he would never use nukes under any circumstance which is what he was being asked to say because there are legitimate reasons to use nuclear weapons, like in the case of a nuclear counterstrike.

>Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to AN ABORTION for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law

>Literal ISIS members train their kids to become ISIS members
Wow, color me surprised. But those aren't the terrorist´s families, they´re actual terrorists, you retard.

>The reason Trump refuses to say he won't use nukes is because that options needs to be on the table for negotiation purposes.
>we need to be able to threaten crimes against humanity in our negotiations
wew lad

>It would be ridiculous for any president to say he would never use nukes under any circumstance which is what he was being asked to say because there are legitimate reasons to use nuclear weapons, like in the case of a nuclear counterstrike.
But that´s not the context that he said it in.

Jesus, why are Trump supporters so allergic to facts?

Exception from prosecution doesn't change the fact that it's legally defined as murder, you've only proven that there's an exemption and stated as much in my previous post. You're not even reading what I'm saying so this is pointless even moreso because you're objecting to a conditional statement but treating it like I'm taking an actual position on the matter. IF abortion is murder and against the law THEN it makes sense to punish people who break that law. Neither one of those premises, that abortion is murder or that it's against the law, need to be true in order for the statement to be logical. You haven't even attempted to argue against it.

>you've only proven that there's an exemption and stated as much in my previous post

Even though I stated as much in my previous post

>Abortion is murder
>But abortion is exempted from that definition

Dat cognitive dissonance

> Neither one of those premises, that abortion is murder or that it's against the law, need to be true in order for the statement to be logical.
When you´re making that argument in reality, as a politician in charge of a country, it is, moron. This isn´t some theoretical internet argument we´re talking about, this is the POTUS describing his stance on abortion. Are you being thick on purpose or what?

Mohammed.

Maybe

Abortion is legally defined as murder, but it's legally excepted from prosecution. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.

>(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

>If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Then here's the exemption from prosecution for an act that is defined as murder

> Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—

>‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

Trump was asked that if abortion were made illegal, would he punish women who have abortion. He answered yes because that is the logical answer. I think you should pull of the video and listen to what is being said.

Men who kill pregnant woman with child in California receive not one but 2 murder charges.

If there's any cognitive dissonance, it's on the liberal.

>If she has an abortion, she´s got to be punished

If something is made illegal then why is it a problem if the law is enforced?

>i-it wasn't a planned mass starvation to surpress the revolts i-i swear!

>If something is made illegal
>What is Roe v Wade

What are you trying to say?

>Abortion is legally defined as murder, but it's legally excepted from prosecution.
No, it isn't.

>I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.

Because it's not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

> I don't know why you're having such a hard time with this.
Because you just keep on repeating the same lie despite the fact that it has no evidence.

>Trump was asked that if abortion were made illegal, would he punish women who have abortion. He answered yes because that is the logical answer.
>You should punish people for exercising their rights to their bodies
Fucking wew

Abortion, despite what you believe, is legal in the US, and not murder. You can literally just google "abortion law" or "roe vs wade" to see how it's legal. But somehow Trump supporters will keep denying that because abortions are evul librul things

>medicine
Fuck off secular trash

...

And the murder of Jews in Nazi Germony was "legal".

And a crime against humanity at the same time.

It is murder, legal murder. You know, like what the president is allowed to do.

>anybody i dont like is le trumper THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL BEEN ABORTED HAHAH CURRENT FUCKING YEAR

Do you understand what conditional statements are? If then . If abortion was illegal then we should follow the law. This is not me saying that I think abortion is illegal.

Nobody really converts to Judaism. That's why, you know, it's fucking tiny. One is born Jewish, and they are still Jewish and will often still identify as Jewish even if they are the most extreme of antitheists.

You know why Christians don't have to follow Jewish laws despite Christianity originating as a radical sect of Judaism? Because otherwise, you couldn't have converts. Paul didn't want converts to think they were Jewish, because it's an ethnicity and a religion, but the ethnicity is required to be a part of the religion in nearly all cases. It was a covenant with the Israelites.

The Old Covenant is vastly inferior to the New Covenant in every possible way.

Sure but you still can't be a Jew without the Old.

>In this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

An unborn child from the moment of conception is a member of the species homo sapiens, is at a stage of development (zygote, fetus), and is carried in the womb.

>Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

> If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Let's read this carefully. If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child that person will be punished for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. That is murder. The reason abortion is not prosecuted is because there expressly written protections from prosecution in this same law for woman and medical professionals. Just because people aren't prosecuted doesn't mean a murder as defined in this law hasn't taken place.