By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Has Bin Laden reached Hitler's status in infamy?

Mnementh said:
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.

He started the Crusade, but the Crusade wasn't the start of the war.  The Crusade was nothing more then Western Reinforcements to the Byzantine Empire of a war that had already been occuring... while "The Holy Land" had been under musim control for centuries, the Byzantine empire had just lost a few territories to the Turks.

The Crusades were nothing more but defensive reinforcements to a nation losing a war.


As for the religious motivation.  I'll note that on route to the Crusades, all the leaders of the Crusade swore on Chrstindom's holiest relics that they would give all conquered lands to the Byzantine empire, only keeping what wasn't nailed down.

What did they do?  You called it.  Kept the land for themselves.



Around the Network
Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
SxyxS said:
bin laden=10000
hitler=14mio
stalin=50mio
dschenghis khan=50-70mio
mao=70mio

3rd reich =14mio
turkish/ottoman empire=100mio++
british empire=100mio++

hitler:following his own racist ideology and the rockefeller-rudin eugenics to make him rule the world=egoism as motivation

bin laden:following mohammeds religious racists ideology to help islam rule world=religion as motivation.


The fuck do those numbers mean? Turkish 100mio+? Are you accusing us of having killed more than 100,000,000 people?


100M is an overstatement, but i'd say at least somewhere between 20-50M of people have been killed or enslaved by ottomans. After the Mongolians and the Japanese, Turks were the biggest killers and slavers from Asia


I'd say the number is in single digits. We haven't colonized our subjects and stole their riches. 20 to 50m would mean today balkan and middle east population would be below 0.


No, you just enslaved them and took their children to fight for you (janissary corps). And 20 to 50M number would come from hundreds of years during which the Empire lasted



Branko2166 said:

First off it's not even close for a multitude of reasons. Especially when viewed outside of America.

Second many have argued that he was created by the US and built up into a terrorist version of the boogeyman and the defacto personification of terrorism. There is a reason why it took close to a decade for him to get assassinated.

As long as he was on the loose, the crusade could be continued indefinitely. Once he was milked for all that he was worth he was then taken out. And that's if we believe those events to be 100% factual. Some theorise that he was dead for a while and the whole operation was a stunt.

Considering that he was one of the most wanted men of all time it is beyond shocking that they didn't even show his body. And the explanation that they threw him into the sea out of respect to islamic custom is laughable.

After the cold war, which threatened civilization both through communism (threat to the right) and nuclear winter (threat to the green side of the left), there was a void in what the greatest threat was.  End result was there was a split with the left beating the drum of climate change, and the right on terrorism.  Bin Laden ended up becoming an icon of this post-cold war era of no mater super powers clashing, so something had to be seen as a threat.  But, I think it is also important to understand what is going on.  I find people thinking of cabals orchestrating conspiracies to be absurd.  However, it doesn't mean the powers that be don't try to spin things certain ways for political gain.  They will utilize the noise of the internet to mask intentions and also be able to have enough random events they can spin.



I feel like Hitler was way more heartless. He used systematic murder. Bin Ladin just used chaos.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

richardhutnik said:
Branko2166 said:

First off it's not even close for a multitude of reasons. Especially when viewed outside of America.

Second many have argued that he was created by the US and built up into a terrorist version of the boogeyman and the defacto personification of terrorism. There is a reason why it took close to a decade for him to get assassinated.

As long as he was on the loose, the crusade could be continued indefinitely. Once he was milked for all that he was worth he was then taken out. And that's if we believe those events to be 100% factual. Some theorise that he was dead for a while and the whole operation was a stunt.

Considering that he was one of the most wanted men of all time it is beyond shocking that they didn't even show his body. And the explanation that they threw him into the sea out of respect to islamic custom is laughable.

After the cold war, which threatened civilization both through communism (threat to the right) and nuclear winter (threat to the green side of the left), there was a void in what the greatest threat was.  End result was there was a split with the left beating the drum of climate change, and the right on terrorism.  Bin Laden ended up becoming an icon of this post-cold war era of no mater super powers clashing, so something had to be seen as a threat.  But, I think it is also important to understand what is going on.  I find people thinking of cabals orchestrating conspiracies to be absurd.  However, it doesn't mean the powers that be don't try to spin things certain ways for political gain.  They will utilize the noise of the internet to mask intentions and also be able to have enough random events they can spin.

That's a fair point. I think a huge influence though on the US foreign policy is it's military industrial complex. It is an industry which relies on America having enemies. Once they move away from terrorism which I think is happening already they will need a new enemy to focus on. My bet is China as they are a competitor not only military but perhaps even more so economically.





 

 

Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
SxyxS said:
bin laden=10000
hitler=14mio
stalin=50mio
dschenghis khan=50-70mio
mao=70mio

3rd reich =14mio
turkish/ottoman empire=100mio++
british empire=100mio++

hitler:following his own racist ideology and the rockefeller-rudin eugenics to make him rule the world=egoism as motivation

bin laden:following mohammeds religious racists ideology to help islam rule world=religion as motivation.


The fuck do those numbers mean? Turkish 100mio+? Are you accusing us of having killed more than 100,000,000 people?


100M is an overstatement, but i'd say at least somewhere between 20-50M of people have been killed or enslaved by ottomans. After the Mongolians and the Japanese, Turks were the biggest killers and slavers from Asia


I'd say the number is in single digits. We haven't colonized our subjects and stole their riches. 20 to 50m would mean today balkan and middle east population would be below 0.


No, you just enslaved them and took their children to fight for you (janissary corps). And 20 to 50M number would come from hundreds of years during which the Empire lasted


Thats not true, we did not enslave nobody. We didnot steal the riches of our subjects. They could become whatever they wanted in our empire. Doctors, merchants, viziers name it. Janissary was a good idea, parents wanted to send their kids to Istanbul, balkans was very poor and sending their sons to Istanbul and get an elite education is the best they could hope for. 20 to 50M is nonsense, provide sources or don't say numbers at all.



Sorry CGI but that's quite the dumb question you've asked. Osama Bin Laden as evil as he was, doesn't even compare with the worst mass murderers in history. He is waaaay down the list. In fact he'd be right at the bottom of the pile if number of killed are of any significance. The FBI have only found evidence to link him to the US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (200+ dead). Everything else he is just a suspect.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden



Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
SxyxS said:
bin laden=10000
hitler=14mio
stalin=50mio
dschenghis khan=50-70mio
mao=70mio

3rd reich =14mio
turkish/ottoman empire=100mio++
british empire=100mio++

hitler:following his own racist ideology and the rockefeller-rudin eugenics to make him rule the world=egoism as motivation

bin laden:following mohammeds religious racists ideology to help islam rule world=religion as motivation.


The fuck do those numbers mean? Turkish 100mio+? Are you accusing us of having killed more than 100,000,000 people?


100M is an overstatement, but i'd say at least somewhere between 20-50M of people have been killed or enslaved by ottomans. After the Mongolians and the Japanese, Turks were the biggest killers and slavers from Asia


I'd say the number is in single digits. We haven't colonized our subjects and stole their riches. 20 to 50m would mean today balkan and middle east population would be below 0.


No, you just enslaved them and took their children to fight for you (janissary corps). And 20 to 50M number would come from hundreds of years during which the Empire lasted


Thats not true, we did not enslave nobody. We didnot steal the riches of our subjects. They could become whatever they wanted in our empire. Doctors, merchants, viziers name it. Janissary was a good idea, parents wanted to send their kids to Istanbul, balkans was very poor and sending their sons to Istanbul and get an elite education is the best they could hope for. 20 to 50M is nonsense, provide sources or don't say numbers at all.


I agree it was a good idea from a military standpoint for the Turks to use the children of those they subjugated as their elite military fighting force.

However you make it sound like it was a willing choice that the parents of those children made. This practice was called Devşirme which was effectively a blood tax forced on the christians where families had to give up their first born son to the Ottoman empire. They were then raised as muslims and trained to fight the enemies of the empire including suppression of their own kin. It's one thing to say it's great from a military standpoint however if you think is great from a humanistic stand point then you have a seriously warped mindset.

 

 



 

 

Branko2166 said:
Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
Player1x3 said:
Turkish said:
SxyxS said:
bin laden=10000
hitler=14mio
stalin=50mio
dschenghis khan=50-70mio
mao=70mio

3rd reich =14mio
turkish/ottoman empire=100mio++
british empire=100mio++

hitler:following his own racist ideology and the rockefeller-rudin eugenics to make him rule the world=egoism as motivation

bin laden:following mohammeds religious racists ideology to help islam rule world=religion as motivation.


The fuck do those numbers mean? Turkish 100mio+? Are you accusing us of having killed more than 100,000,000 people?


100M is an overstatement, but i'd say at least somewhere between 20-50M of people have been killed or enslaved by ottomans. After the Mongolians and the Japanese, Turks were the biggest killers and slavers from Asia


I'd say the number is in single digits. We haven't colonized our subjects and stole their riches. 20 to 50m would mean today balkan and middle east population would be below 0.


No, you just enslaved them and took their children to fight for you (janissary corps). And 20 to 50M number would come from hundreds of years during which the Empire lasted


Thats not true, we did not enslave nobody. We didnot steal the riches of our subjects. They could become whatever they wanted in our empire. Doctors, merchants, viziers name it. Janissary was a good idea, parents wanted to send their kids to Istanbul, balkans was very poor and sending their sons to Istanbul and get an elite education is the best they could hope for. 20 to 50M is nonsense, provide sources or don't say numbers at all.


I agree it was a good idea from a military standpoint for the Turks to use the children of those they subjugated as their elite military fighting force.

However you make it sound like it was a willing choice that the parents of those children made. This practice was called Devşirme which was effectively a blood tax forced on the christians where families had to give up their first born son to the Ottoman empire. They were then raised as muslims and trained to fight the enemies of the empire including suppression of their own kin. It's one thing to say it's great from a military standpoint however if you think is great from a humanistic stand point then you have a seriously warped mindset.

 

 


Many parents wanted to give their sons away, I had a source for this but can't find it at the moment, ofcourse there were also parents who didn't want it. But for me, if I lived poor with no guarantee my kids would survive the other day, I would send them away to the best palaces of Istanbul and give them one of the best educations in the world. They didnt fight their own kin, the collected kids were from our own subjects, there was no inner fight. They fighted their own enemies, enemies of the empire. In return, they lived the best life. Btw Yeniceri corps numbers were never that big, it never crossed 100k. We also had other elite units like the sipahi beside the regular armies.



Bin Laden did very bad things to protect his beliefs but U.S. is just as bad sticking their noses everywhere where they don't belong, and always ALWAYS acting like they're boss of the world and those who don't agree are enemies.