So who is the bigger evil (Now With Poll)

[Alistar7]

10/22/2004 02:05 PM

About what I figured, I even gave you more time than you should have needed considering how fast you jumped on my OP. cKGunslinger was dead on, sorry I missed the buildup that led to you getting a perfect breakdown on your contribution to the forum.....

 

[assemblage]

The 5th Column is ever increaingly our enemy.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7
a tremendous amount of lives OSBL and his minions have taken in multiple acts around the globe.....

How many and how directly was he connected to each one?

Not exactly sure of the EXACT number of people killed by AQ or EXACT number of attacks, are you not aware of their "work"??????

I would have to say that as leader of AQ he would be responsible for all of them, just as Hitler was responsible for every holocaust victim......

You don't have to be exact.

Also, it seems like most of the attacks are by groups with only a loose collection to bin laden. It doesn't seem like there's much of a chain of command.

Fine, well call them loosely affiliated franchises then, lol, WTF is your point? OK, ya convinced me, Bush is more evil than OSBL if you can prove Bush instructed his military to intenionally kill any innocent people. I'll give you 5 minutes......

10/22/2004 01:57 PM

Are you on something? First your Utah post and now this?

Many people are comparing the lives OBL and Bush have caused to end. If you want to say OBL has caused more deaths, please point to some numbers.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
10/22/2004 02:05 PM

About what I figured, I even gave you more time than you should have needed considering how fast you jumped on my OP. cKGunslinger was dead on, sorry I missed the buildup that led to you getting a perfect breakdown on your contribution to the forum.....

What was ckGunslinger dead on about? Ranting and raving?

Now it's my turn: Post in two seconds OR ELSE!!!! :roll:

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7
10/22/2004 02:05 PM

About what I figured, I even gave you more time than you should have needed considering how fast you jumped on my OP. cKGunslinger was dead on, sorry I missed the buildup that led to you getting a perfect breakdown on your contribution to the forum.....

What was ckGunslinger dead on about? Ranting and raving?

Now it's my turn: Post in two seconds OR ELSE!!!! :roll:

How many innocent people has Bush intenionally killed, and wheres the proof? Answer my question and I'll answers yours, if not fvck off troll. BTW you need to check your sarcasm meter, it's apparently more off than your moral compass.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Answer my question and I'll answers yours, if not fvck off troll.

errmm.. but I asked you first.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Answer my question and I'll answers yours, if not fvck off troll.

errmm.. but I asked you first.

Dead on, exactly why he didn't get a vacation

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Answer my question and I'll answers yours, if not fvck off troll.

errmm.. but I asked you first.

Dead on, exactly why he didn't get a vacation

:roll:

Are you here to have a pissing match or to discuss who is the bigger evil? I asked you a question, then you ask me a question back and say you'll answer mine if I answer yours all the while cursing and trolling about off-topic matters... If I don't hear something substantive I'll let it go so as not to drown the thread out in a pissing match.

 

[Alistar7]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_..._on_terror/default.stm

There ya go, the timeline of OSBL and AQ, if you really want to know you can....

Ill make it easy on you, just give me prrof that Bush used the military or any of his official power to intentionally kill even ONE innocent person?

 

[biostud]

As a person I would say Osama, because his motivation is building a fundamentalistic regime. Bush has definately been responsible for more deaths, but you can say that you would need to subtract the death of the people who would have died if the Saddam regime had still been i n power.

Personally I don't see Bush as evil, just misguided. If I had to live in a world ruled by Osama or Bush, I would choose Bush because I think he wants better world, even though I don't agree of his ways to do this.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_..._on_terror/default.stm

There ya go, the timeline of OSBL and AQ, if you really want to know you can....

BTW you are forgetting a tremendous amount of lives OSBL and his minions have taken in multiple acts around the globe.....

I'm asked you to quantify "tremendous." The timeline doesn't really help.

If it wasn't for Bush's warmongering in Iraq around 30,000 people would be alive today. OBL has 3,000 for 9/11. I agree on that. But if you want to add more to OBL's column then you need to quantify them and point out how he was related. Muslim terrorism is pretty spread out. It's not like our government where Bush is #1.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: biostud666
As a person I would say Osama, because his motivation is building a fundamentalistic regime. Bush has definately been responsible for more deaths, but you can say that you would need to subtract the death of the people who would have died if the Saddam regime had still been i n power.

Personally I don't see Bush as evil, just misguided. If I had to live in a world ruled by Osama or Bush, I would choose Bush because I think he wants better world, even though I don't agree of his ways to do this.

Ahh.. some sensibility enters this discussion... quickly followed by more of the same.




Edit: *sigh*

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: biostud666
As a person I would say Osama, because his motivation is building a fundamentalistic regime. Bush has definately been responsible for more deaths, but you can say that you would need to subtract the death of the people who would have died if the Saddam regime had still been i n power.

Ahh.. some sensibility enters this discussion.

Okay, lets subtact the number of people who would have died if the Saddam regime had been in power over this time. I'm thinking nowhere near 30,000 but I'm open to hearing numbers and arguments.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: biostud666
As a person I would say Osama, because his motivation is building a fundamentalistic regime. Bush has definately been responsible for more deaths, but you can say that you would need to subtract the death of the people who would have died if the Saddam regime had still been i n power.

Ahh.. some sensibility enters this discussion.

Okay, lets subtact the number of people who would have died if the Saddam regime had been in power over this time. I'm thinking nowhere near 30,000 but I'm open to hearing numbers and arguments.

AFAIK the UN sanctions was indirectly cause of death of thousands of Iraqi children, because they couldn't get the right medication..... or rather Saddam prevented the medication to reach the right people. I'm to tired to find some info, but it should be available.

*
One Child Dies Every 10 Minutes
*
6000 Children Each Month
*
Nearly 1 Million Dead in 10 Years

'The conditions in Iraq are appalling. Malnutrition is running at about 30% for children under 5 years old.... This is directly attributable to the impact of sanctions, which have caused the breakdown of the clean water system, health facilities and all the things that young children require....It's incompatible with the UN Charter, with the Convention on Human Rights, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child....'
- Denis Halliday, 34-year veteran of United Nations, upon resigning his post as UN administrator for the 'Oil for Food' program

 

[Miramonti]

...or Karl Rove.

 

[Infohawk]

Personally I don't see Bush as evil, just misguided. If I had to live in a world ruled by Osama or Bush, I would choose Bush because I think he wants better world, even though I don't agree of his ways to do this.

(Since ckgunslinger is passively-agressively (and my I add this is also "more of the same") suggest people who disagree with this quote are not sensible, I'll respond to biostud's comment, which is not an outrageous one.)

I don't think this ends the debate because one can argue Osama is also misguided. Whether or not Bush is evil is at issue too. So saying Bush isn't evil without giving more specifics isn't really helpful. Biostud seems to give a specific when he says Bush wants a better world. Well I think Osama thinks he wants a better world too. This reasoning strikes me as circular.

I'm open to other quantifiers of evil. It seems like unecessary death tolls accrued is a fairly objective one as opposed to arguing who wants a better world.

 

[Alistar7]

By one estimate, 300,000 people were slaughtered during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135652,00.html

The head of the unit, Greg Kehoe, who has seen more than his share of horrors in places such as the Balkans, couldn?t believe what he saw.

"I?ve never seen women and children executed, defenseless people executed in this fashion," he said. "I mean, you look at a young woman holding her 2-year-old child with a gunshot wound to the back of the head. I can?t find any reason to justify that."



You got your OSBL numbers, Saddams during sanctions (which bush ended, give him that extra credit per person per month since Saddam has been gone, more than 3,000 I'll bet), and now saddams intentional ones he orchestrated while in power. Seems "your thinking" is wrong, maybe you should read up on the facts you have asked for and been given before you make yourself look so foolish again. I

You find even one innocent person Bush has intenionally killed? I'll check back tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure even your anit bush twisted mind wont find one. Ill be voting for Kerry this time round, so don't bother with that either....

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: biostud666


AFAIK the UN sanctions was indirectly cause of death of thousands of Iraqi children, because they couldn't get the right medication..... or rather Saddam prevented the medication to reach the right people. I'm to tired to find some info, but it should be available.

*
One Child Dies Every 10 Minutes
*
6000 Children Each Month
*
Nearly 1 Million Dead in 10 Years

'The conditions in Iraq are appalling. Malnutrition is running at about 30% for children under 5 years old.... This is directly attributable to the impact of sanctions, which have caused the breakdown of the clean water system, health facilities and all the things that young children require....It's incompatible with the UN Charter, with the Convention on Human Rights, with the Convention on the Rights of the Child....'
- Denis Halliday, 34-year veteran of United Nations, upon resigning his post as UN administrator for the 'Oil for Food' program

Bush was also behind the sanctions right? Until he decided to start the war at least... Not sure this leaves his column.

 

[Gamingphreek]

What kind of crap title is that.

You may think bush is wrong, you may disagree strongly with him but to compare him to Osama, Hussein, Hitler.... come on people!!! Think before you post crap like this!!!!

-Kevin

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Personally I don't see Bush as evil, just misguided. If I had to live in a world ruled by Osama or Bush, I would choose Bush because I think he wants better world, even though I don't agree of his ways to do this.

(Since ckgunslinger is passively-agressively (and my I add this is also "more of the same") suggest people who disagree with this quote are not sensible, I'll respond to biostud's comment, which is not an outrageous one.)

I don't think this ends the debate because one can argue Osama is also misguided. Whether or not Bush is evil is at issue too. So saying Bush isn't evil without giving more specifics isn't really helpful. Biostud seems to give a specific when he says Bush wants a better world. Well I think Osama thinks he wants a better world too. This reasoning strikes me as circular.

I'm open to other quantifiers of evil. It seems like unecessary death tolls accrued is a fairly objective one as opposed to arguing who wants a better world.

Sure Osama want's a better world, I just think that living in a fundamentalistic islamic world would suck major a$$. So I don't think anyone is "Evil" in an absolute statement. I would like to live in a world where I can speak freely and live in peace. This isn't an absolute statement of good, but I think it's better and Bush is closer to my personal view of good than Osama is.

Unecessary death toll....... who say they are unecessary? (Just to point out that it isn't objective at all)
Killings caused by terrorism is by our standards unecessary, but can for a fundamentalism be a legit way to reach his goals. We on the otherhand accepts that civilians will die during a war, but we try to keep the casualties as low as possible (glorified).

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
By one estimate, 300,000 people were slaughtered during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

First I'll note I don't think Fox news is a respectable source, but I'll accept the number for the sake of argument.

Saddam was in power since 1979, for about 24 years. That's about 1,250 per year. The Iraq war has been much more costly in lives than that. Also, in that 30,000 you have to assume are the people killed after the first gulf war which was a special event and tied to American involvement or non-involvement. I say that because even if the average is 1,250 -- paltry compared to our time in Iraq -- it might not have been that high in any given year.

You find even one innocent person Bush has intenionally killed? I'll check back tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure even your anit bush twisted mind wont find one. Ill be voting for Kerry this time round, so don't bother with that either....

First of all you are bringing the intentional requirement into the picture, not me. I don't think there's a giant difference between starting a war where you KNOW innocents will die and continuing it where you are 100% positive innocents are losign their lives everyday and being complicit with the 911 plots. There's a difference, but Bush is still responsible for the Iraqis deaths. If you want to carry this further we can require both guys to have killed with their own bare hands. How useful would that be? Not very. In other words, actions speak louder than words (or in this case thoughts).

 

[TheSiege]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
What kind of crap title is that.

You may think bush is wrong, you may disagree strongly with him but to compare him to Osama, Hussein, Hitler.... come on people!!! Think before you post crap like this!!!!

-Kevin

iraq was in a soverign state when bush invaded it
poland was also when hitler invaded it

both took the legal steps to enter the countrys they invaded
im not saying bush is anything like hitler......yet
but what makes it ok for the US to invade 2 countrys. the world was against this war
the UN was against this war, why does bush feel he is above it,
but this is off topic. bush is evil, he may have taken legal steps to invade iraq which have little to do with 9-11 or WMD. and if he is so concerned about human rights, why not invade China? oh wait they dont have oil and their inports/exports affect out countrys economy. politics arent just black and white, there is alot of green involved and bush knows that, and thats what evil men want most, money and power. hes got one, and some of the other and now he wants more.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Alistar7
By one estimate, 300,000 people were slaughtered during Saddam's rule and dumped in 40 different mass grave sites around the country.

First I'll note I don't think Fox news is a respectable source, but I'll accept the number for the sake of argument.

Saddam was in power since 1979, for about 24 years. That's about 1,250 per year. The Iraq war has been much more costly in lives than that. Also, in that 30,000 you have to assume are the people killed after the first gulf war which was a special event and tied to American involvement or non-involvement. I say that because even if the average is 1,250 -- paltry compared to our time in Iraq -- it might not have been that high in any given year.

You find even one innocent person Bush has intenionally killed? I'll check back tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure even your anit bush twisted mind wont find one. Ill be voting for Kerry this time round, so don't bother with that either....

First of all you are bringing the intentional requirement into the picture, not me. I don't think there's a giant difference between starting a war where you KNOW innocents will die and continuing it where you are 100% positive innocents are losign their lives everyday and being complicit with the 911 plots. There's a difference, but Bush is still responsible for the Iraqis deaths. If you want to carry this further we can require both guys to have killed with their own bare hands. How useful would that be? Not very. In other words, actions speak louder than words (or in this case thoughts).

What was that,BLAH BLAH BLAH?

There was a direct quote from people there handling the mass graves, not Fox editorial spin. The numbers for deaths during sanctions are well known. Bush ended them, while the UN wanted them to continue until Saddam fully complied, which you probably think was the right answer.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: biostud666
Sure Osama want's a better world, I just think that living in a fundamentalistic islamic world would suck major a$$. So I don't think anyone is "Evil" in an absolute statement. I would like to live in a world where I can speak freely and live in peace. This isn't an absolute statement of good, but I think it's better and Bush is closer to my personal view of good than Osama is.

I highlighted the important part. There's nothing wrong with having personal view and there's no doubt this thread is subjective and not the best way to spend time and that we're having fun bla bla bla... It all comes down to your definition of evil anyway... like I said in my first post.

That said I think there are people who would prefer to live in Osama's world. (And I think Bush is fundamentalist too, not as bad because he has people limiting him in this country, but same kind of thinker). So when we are left with personal opinions, I look at the number of lives they cost because I think all human lives are equal so it's a good gauge.

Unecessary death toll....... who say they are unecessary?

A lot of people would but we can save that for another thread (I think it's been gone over with the discussions of the merits of the Iraq war).

 

[Gamingphreek]

He felt the need to invade because WE WERE ATTACKED.

Iraq was not Sovereign... the Kurds, Shiites, last time i checked they were being killed in large numbers. Also i dont think mass graves are a symbol of a peaceful state, nor are the elusive Chem weapons. None of us can say they are not there because no one here is in a position to know, however we have seen pictures on the news that were shown at the UN.

The world was not against this way. France and Russia were along with a lot of smaller countries, however Russia isn't exactly a "clean" country, and we all know the rumored french salute *puts hands up in surrender*. Im not degrading these countries but there are obvious reasons.

As for the weapons inspectors... they say there were no weapons however how do they know, they saw what Saddam wanted them to see. They did not walk in a line across Iraq. So though there opinion and knowledge of this is much more than my own, there is definately more to it than meets the eye.

-Kevin