Top 10 Tyrants That Have Gotta Go

  • News
  • Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date
Mafia and business interests. Castro is good for Cuba, but not the US. No doubt about that.Arafat is not a tyrant. Not in the sense that we speak of today. Not in the sense people are dying and he doesn't care. He's fighting for his people, and for as long as he's fighting for his people, he'll never be a tyrant. You can't fight for your people and be a tyrant.In summary, a list of top 10 tyrants that should be removed by any means necessary, preferably peacefully through the intervention of the United Nations, include: Kim Jong II of North Korea, Osama bin Laden, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Fidel Castro of Cuba
  • #36
Were you able to read the post before it was deleted?

I wasn't able to. Was it directed towards me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Nope.

Maybe next time.:wink:
 
  • #38
Originally posted by kat
BH-Can you explain this term "Bassers"?
I think it's spelled with an 'a' not an e. I've been using it for so many years that I don't know where I got it from, but from somewhere I'm sure I got it. I use it as a substitute for 'bastards' and interestingly only found one example using google;

"Waaagh cumm ere you bassar!"

I guess I'm further over the hill than I had imagined. Has no one heard this before?
 
  • #39
Ahhh you Bassar!

Lol, it's a new one to me
Maybe, It'll make a comeback though
haha
 
  • #40
Originally posted by Nicool003
Well Castro WAS their leader when they began building and buying and Getting free missles from the russians. The missles could hit almost anywhere in the U.S and they would not hesitate to use them. They had them pointed at us and ready to fire! Are you implying he is a good leader or that he is not bad? Or even worse are you defending him? He could have killed thousands! Good thing Kenedy was in office when that happened, he was a great president. His diplomatic and military plans worked wonders.
Where are you getting this from ?
Castro was hardly involved in the descision making
process I think. The USSR saw US missiles
in Turkey and decided that they will do the
same in Cuba in order to balance the shifted
"balance of terror".
(Great ST episode btw !)
 
  • #41
*Deleted personal attack*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
http://www.worldpaper.com/2003/march03/iraq6.html

I read the original article and was shocked to find Castro on the list. I mean, I don't like the guy, but I can't see how anyone can justify putting him on a top ten list...even ahead of Mugabe! (who was on the runners-up list...there were like 2 runners-up)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Ians fachist regime must go. He has been a tyrant to the people of horncastle for 16 years. He was born in germany for god sake. No Ian I did not meen it arghhhh...(conversation terminated)
 
  • #44
Greetings !

So, my message was a "personal attack" Zero ?
I thought it was far from it, it was relativly
polite and to the point considering your
messages.

But, I will rephrase myseld if you wish:
To declare about a democratic leader of a
democratic country that "His power is based soley
on fear and terror.", that he is "a tyrant" and
that "he's got to go" is not something that
one is supposed to be ABLE to do here. Aspecialy
if one uses his athority as a mentor to write it.

If I were to say that about Bush or Blair or Shiraq
then my messages will surely be dealt with
appropriately as I would also expect them too
(in the Bush and Blair case I guess it won't
be you doing the edits). But being a mentor
your messages can not be dealt with by other
mentors.

Now, all I'm asking for - politely for now, is that
you refrain from posting this garbage about Sharon
or Bush or any other democratic leader of a democratic
country.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #45
I wouldn't really get into an argument about this, but in some ways Bush and Blair are moving in that direction. Think Orwell's perpetual war, for a clue. It's not a matter of personally terrorising the nation, but creating a visage of terror and offering themselves, and whatever restrictive policies they support as a tempting solution. Sharon for example arguablly does use the idea of suicide bombers menacing Israel to maintain his hold on power. Whether this would qualify for tyrant is another question.

Then again, with the majority of nations listed, the terror they have themselves is only a minor part of their rule. Any tyrant cannot rule purely by terror. The terror is always reserved for the resistant minority. For the majority, there is the fear of the "enemy", "terrorists" or "infidels", and the use of disinformation to spread the lies. The population chooses the dictator because they feel, are made to feel, he is for the best. Even Hitler only gassed the few.
 
  • #46
To call Bush, Blair and Sharon tyrants is to change the word tyrant so that it means "a leader of a nation whom you do not like".

The two definitions of tyrant are a leader who has no check on his power, whose every word is law, or (less accurately), a leader who comes to power through non-democratic means.

None of these describe the leaders mentioned. I don't like Bush, and I think Sharon is a war criminal, but none of them are tyrants.

Njorl
 
  • #47
Objections about the legitimacy of Bush's election aside...

By that definition, how many real tyrants are there?
Non-democratic can cover any king, but doesn't cover Hitler, Lenin etc.
No check on his power doesn't cover Castro (he still has his advisors), most soviet union leaders (the politburo restricted them) and many more...
 
  • #48
Originally posted by FZ+
By that definition, how many real tyrants are there?
Non-democratic can cover any king, but doesn't cover Hitler, Lenin etc.
No check on his power doesn't cover Castro (he still has his advisors), most soviet union leaders (the politburo restricted them) and many more...
We've been over this one before, FZ+. Hitler was elected CHANCELLOR. He SIEZED dictatorial power. And Castro's adivsors? They are advisors. That should be self-explanatory.

And as njorl said, that's the WEAKER of the two definitions. It really doesn't matter how you become a tyrant. Just that you become one.
 
  • #49
Hitler was still elected, and he was (shamefully) incredible popular in Germany as long as he was winning. Most of his maneuvering was simply usurping traditional powers from other institutions and groups in Germany... the Wehrmacht for example.
I could have had Hitler arrested easily. I had enough officers loyal to me to carry out his arrest. But that was not the problem. Why should I have taken such action? It would have been an action against the German people. I was was well-informed, through my son and others. The German people were all for Hitler. And they had good reason to be...
Field Marshall Brauchistch, John Memorandum
 
  • #50
Originally posted by damgo
Hitler was still elected, and he was (shamefully) incredible popular in Germany as long as he was winning. Most of his maneuvering was simply usurping traditional powers from other institutions and groups in Germany... the Wehrmacht for example.
Key phrase: "usurping traditional powers."
 
  • #51
Which he was given by the people.

Think enabling act for example.
 
  • #52
Where are you getting this from ?
Castro was hardly involved in the descision making
process I think. The USSR saw US missiles
in Turkey and decided that they will do the
same in Cuba in order to balance the shifted
"balance of terror".QUOTE]




You have got to be kidding. Everyone knows about the Cuban Missel Chrisis! He was the leader of the country and dislikes or disliked (god knows what the old coot thinks now) the US and since the US has some small control on Cuba because the once were owned by spain who lost them to us, he wanted the missels. The soviets had to ask permission and I notice you said "I think" well here I KNOW that as a fact he had decisions and choices.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by FZ+
Which he was given by the people.

Think enabling act for example.
Well after reading that other thread, FZ+, it is clear to me that you make up your own definitions to conveniently fit your views. I can't argue against that. I won't even try (anymore). All I can suggest is you invest in a dictionary and apply it consistently. Well hey, waddaya know, here's a free one: www.dictionary.com
 
  • #55
Well after reading that other thread, FZ+, it is clear to me that you make up your own definitions to conveniently fit your views. I can't argue against that. I won't even try (anymore). All I can suggest is you invest in a dictionary and apply it consistently. Well hey, waddaya know, here's a free one: www.dictionary.com
Er... I do not think I made any statement on definition here. Merely that the power of Hitler was more or less given to him by the people, however misguided he may be. But he still fits in with the first definition of "tyrant". I think we are tackling different parts of the problem here.
 
  • #56
In addentum, Njorl's definition disagrees with that of dictionary.com's...

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
 
  • #57
"An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions."

"a leader who has no check on his power, whose every word is law"

Not a lot of difference in the principle definitions as far as I can tell.

Njorl
 
  • #58
Originally posted by FZ+
By that definition, how many real tyrants are there?
Non-democratic can cover any king, but doesn't cover Hitler, Lenin etc.
Ooh... it doesn't ?!
Well, aren't you just twisting historical facts
"JUST A BIT" ?! :wink:

P.S. Don't answer that, it was a rethoric question.:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #59
Greetings !
Originally posted by FZ+
Sharon for example arguablly does use the idea of suicide bombers menacing Israel to maintain his hold on power. Whether this would qualify for tyrant is another question.
Like you said - "arguably".:wink: Despite some questionable
acts of Sharon in the conflict with Lybia - where
a few hundred people got slaughtered by Lybians
who supported Israel in villages that did not
(which is the primary reason for how the whole "war
criminal" story came to exist, despite the fact that
he was cleared of these charges), Sharon currently
really represents the center of the Israely political
"map", had Benjamin Netaniahu been chosen as
a prime minister again his views and actions
towards the Palestinian authority would probably
be slightly more serious.

The current view of the majority of Israelis is
that a complete separation must exist between
Israel and Palestine in the form of an unpenetrable
border so that the Palestinians will be left to
bother and kill nobody else but themselves,
this complete border is now in the process of
construction.

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Ooh... it doesn't ?!
Well, aren't you just twisting historical facts
"JUST A BIT" ?!
They were both elected leaders of some form or description.

P.S. Don't answer that, it was a rethoric question.
Oops.

Besides, they are covered now by clauses 2 and 3 of the newer definition. (And the democracy definition has seemingly disappeared.)
 
  • #61
Originally posted by FZ+
They were both elected leaders of some form or description.
Lenin was NEVER elected !
Hitler was elected but then he used violence
and intimifation to get rid of opposition and
eventually declared a totalitarian rule.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #62
The more we are finding out about Saddam and his extreme nepotism and cronyism, the more vomit-inducing is the entire episode. Why was this guy allowed to go on for so long? The man was a thug, a tyrant, a despot, a thief, a murderer. Thanks George Bush and co for a new foreign policy which aims to end such madness.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by drag
Lenin was NEVER elected !
Hitler was elected but then he used violence
and intimifation to get rid of opposition and
eventually declared a totalitarian rule.

Live long and prosper.
Lenin's group, the bolsheviks, were elected over the mansheviks a fews years before a russian revolution. Even during the revolution, they eventually gained the support of the majority.

Hitler was elected to power. What he did later is insignificant. But really, this is an argument in technicalities. Besides, by the second definition, there isn't really much point whether they are democratically elected or not.
 
  • #64
I think the biggest tyrant is GWB. Let's impeach!

sidenote: comebackalive.com is great! Robert Young Pelton's latest edition of The World's Most Dangerous Places just came out. Its a fabulous read! I highly recommend it!
 
  • #65
Originally posted by GlamGein
I think the biggest tyrant is GWB. Let's impeach!
I think you should be banned from this forum !
Let's ban you !
(Ooh... I forgot about the biased mentors...)

FZ+,
I guess you studied different history than the
one I did...:wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #66
I probably did.
 
  • #67
Ban ME?! I am not the one controlling your future.
 
  • #68
That is correct! It is me, the Evil One, George Bush. I have your destiny in my claws. Do my bidding or I will crush you and your little world!

Worship me! For I am the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Alias
That is correct! It is me, the Evil One, George Bush. I have your destiny in my claws. Do my bidding or I will crush you and your little world!

Worship me! For I am the Evil One George Bush! All hail George Bush!
Yes my master !
 

Similar threads

News China Occupies Florida: What is American Resistance?
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Is Gaddafi Truly Trustworthy After Disarmament Claims?
Replies
12
Views
3K
News The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy
Replies
31
Views
5K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top