Who is the most completely evil person ever to walk this Earth?

PS: Dibble, Danny Wilson is just a bit too obvious.

Vlad the Impaler, the 'real life' Dracula!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler

Vlad was a dodgy character but Memhet, his mentor and lifetime enemy taught him everything he knew while he was captive in Istanbul. Besides, surely Vlad doesn't compare to the obvious suspects either; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc..

My vote goes to that curly haired twat off Top Gear

I was just avoiding the obvious. Vlad was 'only' responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, Hitler and Stalin's atrocities run into millions.

alan rickman

Gary Gibson

You could also make a case for God Himself, (if you believe he walked the earth as Jesus). Milions have been killed in his name over the centuries.Maybe not his direct fault but hey he started it!

he didnt start it, it was some rarf who misunderstood his nature

It wasn't a rarf, it was a doyle!!!

it must have been a biff, surely?

anyway, back to the question - there's been some pretty evil bastards about. Mao rubbed a fair few out, so did Genghis Khan.
Idi Amin was a c**t as well.
However, for reasons of personal gain I nominate The Witchfinder General. Despicable bloke, even after all this time you think to yourself, "What a wanker"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

This is going to get philosophical. The question is, is there such a characteristic as evilness and if so what does it really mean?

I'll have a stab and say it's the enjoyment of and the deliberate causing of suffering.

By that definition, Hitler wasn't evil. He was a man with a couple of plans aimed at raising his nation's profile - ethnic cleansing at home and megalomania abroad - and who was willing to be ruthless, callous, and as efficient as possible to that end; but I'm not convinced he got a kick out of other people suffering. Some of his operators might have done so, but not him.

Stalin I'm less certain about, but I'd guess he was more motivated by insecurity that by a desire to cause suffering. If he tortured suspects it was more a case of dragging confessions out of them rather than enjoying the sound of their testicles going pop. In any case I'm not sure he made a point of personally witnessed the tortures.

Vlad III's particularly abhorrent way of dealing with dissidents certainly puts him closer to the definition of evil than the previous two, but he was nonetheless motivated by the same sort of concerns as was Stalin.

The most wantonly evil person who comes to my mind for the moment is Josef Fritzl.

But there again, maybe my definition is completely wrong.

Also, for every Josef Fritzl we know about, there may be hundreds we don't know about for one reason or another.

A good question, made me think for once. I've got the book 'The Most Evil Men and Women in History', some shocking people in there.
When is someone evil or ill? I would say that although Josef Fritzl is evil in normal terms, is he not also, fruit of the loom?
I know that this is a difficult one, but what one of us does not think of naughty things we would do to digressers, if we had them at our mercy?
I am against capital punishment, but I am for defending your territory, with sun-blasts if need be.
shipman was evil.

Pedro Alonso Lopez also known as the monster of the Andes killed over 300 young girls in South America. Henry Lee Lucas claimed to have murdered over 200 people in the USA and ate their flesh.

Other than that my mother in law needs to be added to the list.

there's a serial killer in a Russian jail, and they reckon he's guilty of a hell of a lot more murders than they've already got him for

edit; and they've already got him down for a couple of hundred!!!

Evil or mad, the evil is, that if they commited these crimes, the law let them.
For so long,
shipman killed for a easy life, evil.

That would be Chikatilo who claims 50 odd victims but the Russians think there are many more he's not owning up to.

As for Lopez and the law, he had it made by crossing boarders into Columbia, Peru & Ecuador hence avoiding detection for over 10 years, life is cheap in these 3rd world countries, children get sold and deaths and runaways are seldom reported. The last time I was in Ecuador my wife was offered a baby girl free so that she would have a better life.

what about harry s truman...he ordered the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki, when it wasnt absolutely necessary...250,000 dead...that beats peter sutcliffe and ian brady put together!!!

Ohhhh Yes it was........

Unless of course you wanted WWII to carry on for another four or five years

The Japanese were more or less told when and where it would happen, so why didn't Hirohito surrender when he had the chance?

And of course let's not forget the bombing of Dresden which killed more then the Enola Gay did, does that put Bomber Harris & Churchill in the same book?

Fraser Stretton.

The Japanese were warned at the Potsdam conference of the consequences of not surrendering and chose to ignore that advice. The consequnces of an amphibious assault would have resulted in much higher casualties for both sides than the 220, 000 casualties in the atomic bombings, the fire bombing of Tokyo earlier had killed far more people just using incendiaries. The effect of the Atomic weapons was to shock the Japanese people into surrender and in pure material terms was the better of two bad options. IT MAY ALSO HAVE SHOWN TO US ALL THE CONSEQUENCES OF USING SUCH WEAPONS AND BE ONE OF THE REASONS SUCH WEAPONS NEVER HAVE BEEN USED.

Never let the facts get in the way of an excuse to bash the Yanks.

exactly...

I like to bash the bishop

Which one?

the one I bash every day!!

Bishops wear puple.

it will be if he keeps bashing it

What did he do to you like