Yes, there is no comparison.

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.

Ghengis Khan's legacy is mixed.  He was ridiculiously brutal, but had a strong sense of honor.  Essentially his people conquested because they came from a land that had nothing and didn't allow them to survive well.

He would comit the most burtal attrocities to those who opposed him... but generally left alone those who bent to his will.

Basically he did more evil acts then your average conquerer, but on balance was actually probably nicer then your average conquerer since he would prevent his men from causing too much havoc in cities and towns that readily surrenedered.

There is no comparison to be made here, Bin Laden cannot compare, it's not actual events that has made him infamous it's politicians and the media.

It's like comparing a member of One Direction farting to the body of work left to the world by The Beatles.

WTH!? Of course not. The Holocaust and Sept. 11 don't even compare.

In my opinion hitler is still a class higher then osama.

Bin Laden, from a political power standpoint is akin to a legendary pirate. Actually the term would be "terrorist" today. Terrorists don't hold power and are usually punks. What they do can do some major damage, but no on part with the systematic structuring of society to produce mass genocide and purging for purity purposes. Is Bin Laden historically significant? Yes. Is Bin Laden on par with Hitler? No.

As time goes on, and the shift in the power elements and what drives human events changes, Bin Laden will become less and less historical significant.

Okay then. No harm done.

Not even close. As horrible as the things Ben Laden has done, his main reason I don't think, is because of how evil he is. It's because that's just something that radical muslims believe in.

Hitler wanted to be evil. He wanted all the power he could get and wanted to destroy an entire race of inferior humans.

This is going to lead to discussions on good and evil, which will likely blow this thread out to 100+ pages if uncontained.  The thing about Hitler is that he believe he led a just crusade to save his people from destruction, and what he did was meant to be for the good of them.  I remember reading one alternate history story where Hitler went up against Gandhi, and Gandhi tried to do the peaceful resistance, and it did not end well.  And it is more complicated than what you made it out to be in that one line.  And in that is the discussion of what is real evil and whatnot.   

But, in regards to this thread, I doubt that Bin Laden is ever going to get an equivalent of Godwin's Law, the way Hitler does.