My fourth round pick is Francisco Macias Nguema, President and Dictator of Equatorial Guinea, 1968-1979. The human rights violations he perpetrated caused nearly half of the country's population to flee. He banned the word "intellectual," and persecuted those who would fall into that category through the military and police that he personally controlled. He banned fishing, and destroyed boats throughout his reign. He forced all citizens to Africanize their names, and banned the practice of Catholicism due to its ties to colonial forces. He was ousted in 1979 by a military coup. He was convicted of genocide and executed by a Moroccan firing squad. Over the course of his reign, the educated class was systematically destroyed, and over 80,000 people were killed by his military enforcers. Apparently image tags aren't working at the moment. My deepest apologies, most wise and humble Ombak.
If you invalidate my pick then you have to invalidate ASF's pick of The Pashas and Gringo's pick of the entire Comanche tribe. ------------------------------------------------- And no where does it say that the tyrants have to be able to hold off anyone attacking them. Or what do you think all the tyrants in Eastern Europe would have lasted without the big bad Soviet Union behind them?
Not true. The Three Pashas all ruled at the same time as a dictatorial triumvirate. Additionally, it was clarified that we could pick junta-like governments. Thus ASF's pick is valid. Gringo's pick is invalid because he picked out of turn. Thus, the Comanches do not count. You picked an entire bloodline covering multiple rulers over various decades. It is like saying the Tudors were tyrants of England. Of course, I do not care - if I did I would be taking this waaaaay too seriously.
It takes a village to raise a tyrant. Your emphasis on history as a narrative of individual achievement reflects a Western ethnocentric point of view that relegates the masses to a swath of productivity resources while raising the capitalist to a romanticized god-like figure that transcends the superstructure. And I'll eat your babies, too.
Reading this post i could have swore that Gringo was channeling Iranian Monitor. At least up to the part about eating soccernutter's babies, that last bit was definitely Gringo.
His "ethnocentric point of view" phrase is code by the apologia leftists who criticize the nation and its historians; I have heard this exact phrase used by noveau progressive professors in the academic sphere attempting to criticize nationalistic pride. Nonetheless it has no relevance to thread topicality.
The House of Saud is like a "junta" the only difference is that they are related. WHAT HAVE THEY DONE: -Named Arabia after them. -Public beheadings -Corporal punishments (don't go there if you like your limbs) -Horrible treatment of women. Only 5% of them work. Most are forced to stayat home. Women can't vote. Can't drive. And if a women is gangraped she is guilty not the rapists. -Women are treated like sh*t basically once they step out of the house. Probably inside their houses also. -Pwnt the world because of oil. And if you are king and the rest of the family doesn't like you they'll kick you out. Just ask King Sahd.
In the fourth round of the Tyrant Draft, SoFla Metro picks the leader of the Inquisition: Tomás de Torquemada (1420 – September 16, 1498) was a fifteenth century Spanish Dominican, first Inquisitor General of Spain, and confessor to Isabella of Spain. He was famously described by the Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo as "The hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order". He is known for his campaign of persecution against the crypto-Jews and crypto-Muslims of Spain. He was one of the chief supporters of the Alhambra decree which expelled all Jews from Spain in 1492. Modern allusions to Torquemada in popular culture are usually meant to invoke images of the perceived cruelty and callowness of the Catholic Church, organized religion, or other powerful institutions generally. The truth is, you can't Torquemada anything!
Not sure if everyone has gone, but I follow SFM: With my 4th round pick, I take another tyrant known for his fashionable style: Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, Libya. http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/009MaLWdGT2S3/610x.jpg Probably best known for his support of terrorist organizations. http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Gaddafi/Nov2006GaddafiEN.htm Notable in his politics has been the support for liberation movements, in most cases Muslim groups. In the 1970s and the 1980s, this support was sometimes so freely given that even the most unsympathetic groups could get Libyan support. Often the groups represented ideologies far away from Gaddafi's own. International opinion was confused by these policies. Throughout the 1970s, his regime was implicated in subversion and terrorist activities in both Arab and non-Arab countries. By the mid-1980s, he was widely regarded in the West as the principal financier of international terrorism. Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and was accused by the United States of being responsible for direct control of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 200, of which a substantial number were U.S. servicemen. He is also said to have paid "Carlos the Jackal" to kidnap and then release a number of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil ministers. He's mellowed a bit in his old age. Then in 2002 he showed his intreste in an old Italian lady: In January 2002, Gaddafi purchased a 7.5% share of Italian football club Juventus for USD 21 million, through Lafico ("Libyan Arab Foreign Investment Company").
You'll starve. I have long ago sacraficed all my babies to appease the gods of wealth, prosperity, love, and peace. I am old, so I do not remember their names, but I think Mars was one....things didn't turn out the way I expected them...damn kids!
Again, a tyrant with cool shades. I think there might be something to this. In fact, my sources tell me that Hitler quite frequently wore sunglasses, but that his control over his own media image was so strict that no pictures of him wearing those (or reading glasses, which he also wore) were released. Mussolini was wearing sunglasses when he was captured for the last time. I think I will go to the mall tomorrow and get some. I need the help - at this rate, I will never be hunted down by a mob of my citizens, put through a 30 minute kangaroo court by my generals, and summarily executed to the adulation of millions. Where did I go wrong? (btw, I've also noticed what might be a problem with the government's keeping track of the websites we visit. I kept accidentally hitting pages within the Stormfront site when I was searching for this information. When I get put on trial for anti-governmental actions in the future I'm sure they will bring that up as evidence against me.)