Has Bin Laden reached Hitler's status in infamy?

[Mnementh]

Kasz216 said:

Mnementh said:
Nope, concentration camps, trying to genocide Jews and Sinti/Roma, starting a war with millions of casualties, unbelievable war-crimes. No, Bin Laden isn't comparable with Hitler.

Bin Laden is more comparable with Pope Urban II, who started the First Crusade out of religious fanatism. Bin Laden basically does the same.

No he didn't.

The Crusades started for two reasons

 

A)to control Europe's Knight problem.  Which was, if the knights weren't fighting someone they were attacking looting raping and terrorizing peasents and nobles alike.

So this meant coutnries would often start meaningless wars just so their knights would destroy shit in other countries, and war more or less meant that any area invaded would lose about one to two thirds of it's population as the soldiers would steal all the grain peasents had.  BOTH sides armies would do this mind you.

Jersusalem had been under Muslim control around 450 years.  The pope didn't give a shit about Jersualem in the slightest.

 

B) The Crusade wasn't even pope Urban's idea.  It was the Byzantine Empire's idea because they were feeling pressured by the Turks.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/the-true-story-of-the-first-crusade.html?_r=0

 

The first one was a call from help from the east, and the rest were just made to keep asshole knights busy.

The Crusades happened because the Byzantine Empire needed protection and the Pope and Europe had a bunch of roaving assholes that basically just wanted to kill people to get rich.

Well, then it were different reasons. Point is, Urban started the Crusade officially. It wouldn't have happened without him or not in the same extent as he could mobilize the people with his religious position. Bin Laden has a similar role in the terrorist attacks. So I keep thinking both are comparable, whatever the reasons for the actions of them really were.

Funny explanation on the knights. But it sounds about right.