That's oversimplificating it and feels more than obvious to me that any historian buying into it is looking for a cheap way out - the more than stereotyped, defenseless nazi figure, unlike the allies or the communists with their apologists like ther late Hobsbawn. Otherwise you could say Wilhelm II killed 10 million and Hirohito some 20 million.

Remember, the winners tell history as they fit. England declared war against Germany on both world wars and specially in the first you could say they wanted to deliberately curb german hegemony in the continent. I don't remember it ever being accused of a war of aggression. For instance in the most bloody conflict of them all, Germany and the USSR would be at each others throat's very soon anyways... the way Stalin handled east Europe after the war should be more than proof of his intentions. 

I know, that's all true, and I agree.

That's why I said 'arguably', as it could be viewed that way by some. It can get very complicated, many countries had alterior motives and Hitler was the perfect excuse .

No I don't.

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.

Ah, that's ok then

Anyways ´personally I think it's important, specially in such delicate themes, to not fall for the easy trap of "terrorists /nazis/communists etc. were the ultimate evil" or something along these lines. That's the sort of dehumanizing behaviour that made it easier for so many to die in all these wars. 

Oh, hell no. Bin Laden might have liked to commit genocide if he ever got the chance, but more Americans drink themselves to death every year than were ever killed by Al Qaeda. 

Maybe all that military and security cash would have been better spent on re-establishing prohibition.

If you had asked me this before 2009 - 2010, I probably would have said no. However, ever since the rise of social media in those years, for every Hitler reference, mention, joke, and article, there's one for Bin Laden. They seem to be viewed more so as equals nowadays.  

No, no one could reach Hitler's level of evilness. Bin Laden is a mere pest compared to Hitler. You can only really compare Stalin or Mao to Hitler, but at least they only killed people, they didn't people feel completely worthless first.

See that's the logical and historically correct answer to the thread. HOWEVER, infamy is determined by other's (in this case society's) outlook of the person in question. The majority's opinion is that Stalin = Mao and Hilter = Bin Laden just based off the fact that most today only know of Bin Laden's work (since he's so recent) and Hitler (since it's taught pretty universely in schools) while Stalin and Mao fly on the backburner of infamous people in history. 

This. I mean Bin Laden will not be remembered as feverently as Hitler is and will be in the future... It's only because 9/11 was a recent event, compared to WWI being over 60 years ago.