http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/enhancedstory.jsp?maxphotos=4&phototerm=bin+laden&maxstories=4&storyterm=bin+laden&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041029%2F1705255072.htm&sc=1107

Perhaps there is some shock value to my topic, but doesn't this article seem to almost compare Bush to bin Ladin? I'd now consider myself a fairly moderate liberal; I didn't think Bush was wired, and I wouldn't have compared Bush to bin Ladin or Saddam Hussien before reading this article, but both Bush and bin Ladin seem as though they're people who simply were trying to do what they thought was right for their people.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/index.html

Compare the deaths of Iraqis to the deaths of Sept. 11th. I'm NOT trying to justify bin Ladin, al Qaeda or September 11th. I'm just drawing a comparison. between 3 to 10 times as many people have died in iraq than died on September 11th. The first article makes me think that bin Ladin isn't evil the way Hitler was. He's just twisted, but also sees himself with a man of power, with the ability to make a change in the world to better the people. Isn't that comparable to our president?

I know that i'll get flamed, but i cannot stress enough how much i'm trying to dull down this comparison. I'm not trying to justify anything that bin Ladin has done to Americans, but I don't see how we can justify this 'war on terror' by killing 10,000-30,000 civilians who are just as innocent as the 3000+ Americans who were killed.

you'll never see me get into this kinda stuff so enjoy it while you can =P

i just read the yahoo article and i thought the same thing, it makes him sound 'not as bad' as we think he is

hes still bad, but.. i dunno, i agree with you i think

You're of course certainly deserving of flames but I won't do it. What you are missing is the fact that bin Laden is perfectly willing to commit terror against everyone including Arabs.

That's what your president tells you. I'd like to see evidence.

*Shoots self in head*

And sure Bin Laden aint really evil. It's not like if he had his way every non-muslim would be killed in the most barbaric way possible...Not at all.

Oh, sorry, guess you've missed all the news of al Qaeda attacks in Arab countries.

The thing I'm mostly interested in is if bin Laden endorsing Kerry will help or hurt Kerry. That's essentially what this whole thing is about.

Whats the difference what group he targets, and launches attacks against intended to cause death? Thats like saying Hitler "wasn't that bad, afterall, he had nothing against Aryans."

There is no way this thread is going to end well... I'm tempted to just close it now, and save myself the trouble of doing it later (and possibly banning a few people in the proccess).

I will say this for bin Laden: he knows his audience.

You can say he's lying to you or you can realize that it takes more than a madman to damage or destroy some of two of the most important buildings in our country.



So does president George W. Bush.

This thread should certainly not be closed. This is an extremely important issue. I take offense some of Eversor's interpretation but I'm not going to insult him over it. People who reduce themselves to levels worthy of banning should be dealt with but this issue is really too important to ignore, let alone censor.

'Cause you know anything about him

Find evidence that Bush purposefully targeted civilians with the intent to kill them.

Obviously he hasn't had the intent to kill civilians. His goal is... well you can decide for yourself what his goal is, because he's 'flip-flopped' in the issue so much that I have no idea what it is. No matter what you conclude it is, his goal is not to kill civilians.

Likewise, bin Ladin's goals are not simply to kill civilians. His goal was to tell America to back off because he felt that people were being threatened. Just like Bush, the deaths of innocents are the product of attempting to reach goals.

Once again, I'm not trying to justify bin Ladin or the president, I'm just comparing them.

Eversor, you really want that last post to stand as you wrote it? It expresses deeply flawed ideas.

No, I don't want to change it. Perhaps ad to it.

I beileve that both bin Ladin and President Bush beileve that The ends justify the means even if the means is a method which involves the dath of innocent civilians.

I'm not trying to say that bin Ladin isn't a bad person. I'm just saying that maybe George W. Bush might be a bad person as well, for very similar reasons.

How bout we just settle it at this...

Both of them were/are wrong.

The difference is that bin Laden purposefully targeted and killed civilians; Bush did not.

Like I said, no matter the difference, both are wrong.

Matter of opinion.

Who elected bin Laden to "change in the world to better the people"? Bush was democratically elected, and thus his actions should reflect the will of the majority of people in his country. I bet bin Laden chose himself, and is responsible to no one (except the True Master of the Underworld).

And nobody should be surprised so many people died in Iraq; It's war. War is all about killing and destroying.


Hitler was a leader of his country, and thought he was aiding his country. Bin Laden is a crazed leader of imaginary people, who, in their real life and for their eternal misfortune, suffer more and more because of bin Laden's "deeds for his people". So, what is the difference? Hitler was close to his people, whereas bin Laden is as far away from "his people" as he is from his enemies.

I am rubber you are glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you ! NA NA NA NA

My opinion is that anyone who uses the excuse of saying a country has WMD's, which have yet (3 years later) to be found, in a justification for war.... Is wrong.

No true villain considers themselves evil. Just thought I'd leave with that.

In that context, yes, I must agree.

I hate bin ladin and I would love to personally slowly dip him alive into lava, but he at least isn't stupid. He's the most wanted man on earth, but has managed to evade capture for over 2 years (assuming that hes still alive) and he's probably sitting in a cave somewhere right now flipping us off.

It's been a year and a half... but whatever.



Butter it up all you want, he still decided to specifically attack a civilian structure with the hope of killing everyone inside. The civilians were his specific target. In Iraq, they were not a target at all.

Besides, do you know how hard it probably is to tell a true civilian from a soldier dressed as a civilian out there? They just dont care if they're harming more civilans by not dressing as soldiers, they are just looking for sneak attacks. Its probably not that way so much anymore since the once official Iraqi army is defeated, but that means pretty much anyone who is now a threat to US soldiers is not in any type of military uniform.

Quite frankly I dont care how Bin Laden feels about the WTC attacks. The point is he did it, and now its lights out. "Oh I was just doing it for my people." Oh thats brilliant, elevate the tension between America and the Arab world and create MORE death and chaos, and create a more hateful attitude toward that region that didn't reallly exist like it does now. [/bigsarcasm]

Bin Laden knew quite well what he was doing, and now the world is a worse place for it. Dont think for a second that he's not evil.

War is bad.

Either way, A year - two years - 10 years, nothing's been found, which was claimed to be there.

Why are they all dead? Because of all the Suicide bombers! These people are dying at the hand of the same people who killed our citizens. On the news you can estimate that about for every US soldier they kill, they kill 4-8 Iraqi’s. We are as careful as we can be with civilian life. They were purposely trying to take the lives of civilians. That’s the difference.

Now your point that both Bush and Bin Laden were trying to make the world a better place is true. But so was Hitler. Almost all people from bad to good are trying to make the world better in their own eyes. Bin Laden’s idea of a better world is total enforced-by-the-sword radical Muslim. We don’t think this is a better world. Hardly any one really kills just to kill. It’s very easy to paint them as machines that desire nothing but suffering and death, but that’s not entirely true. They’re all trying to make the world better in they’re own eyes. Now there are people who are just in it for their own gain, and don’t really care about any one else, but Bin Laden, while evil, thinks he’s doing the right thing. Just like Hitler. After think about it you realize that even though these people are evil, they’re still human. It really rather sad.

Too bad Bush killed roughly 6.5 times as much innocent life. He's no better.

ladens policy is basically an eye for an eye.

.. And Bush's isn't?

not really, bush gets lamost 3000 dead in the wtc and kills million.

So you're saying Bush is more like a liver for an eye? :p

more like it!:D

So you're saying that Bush is in charge of the suicide bombers? They're the ones that cause all the deaths.

It's not like Bush took any special care to not harm civilians.


No he was not, and they should but they don't.


Sounds like Bush.


It was found that most of the deaths were due to coalition forces:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=8&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc
From the article:

So this video establishes that Bin Laden, within his delusional worldview, is a very rational person. He has his reasons for attacking the US.

... ****ing so what?

This is very simple. This is not a classroom. You are not an academic looking down on current events from an objective standpoint. You are not objective. You are a participant. While you're sitting there equivocating, wondering if he's really all that different from our own leaders, he's sitting in a cave plotting your death. Bin Laden's reasons are his reasons, not our's, and the sooner you understand that the better.

As for the '100,000+' Iraqi casualty reports..has anyone bothered to take a look at their sampling method? They took a bunch of random GPS locations and asked the nearest 30 or so families if they'd lost people to violence in the past year. They didn't ask for death certificates most of the time because it could be seen as insulting. Not terribly systematic and very subject to errors and outright lies (why yes, of course the Americans have killed my children! whose toys are those on the floor? uh, get out, you have insulted my honor!)

They also said that had they counted Fallujah, the total number would be closer to 200,000. That is absurd - there are only 300,000 in Fallujah right now, and no one in Iraq certainly has claimed a fourth of the city has been killed over the past twelve months.

And this is to say nothing of the discrepancy between the report and al Jazeera's coverage, which puts the number at less than 20,000.

I said myself on the first post:



From CNN:



Dependable, perhaps not. A better survey could easily be tallied. However...




I don't put too much stock into beileving that infact 100,000 Iraqis have died. I'm just noting that it has been well over 3,000. As said before, Bush is not getting an eye for an eye. He's doing something worse.



Perhaps the world is not a classroom, but a classroom is a classroom, and I go to one every day, and we have these conversations. However, your right. We are participants, and if we want to change our world, we vote. That's what we do in a democratic society, isn't? Alas, I'm 17. What are my options?