who's more evil bin laden or george w bush?

Topic started by SSJjanemba on May 2, 2011. Last post by EganTheVile1 3 years, 3 months ago.
Post by SSJjanemba (2,176 posts) See mini bio Level 11

what do u guys think?
Post by Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto (8,779 posts) See mini bio Level 18
Bin Laden by far- the son of a bitch has been the mastermind behind attacks on US citizens and service members since the late 80's/early 90's. Bush tied to stop the mother fucker. YOU (as in the American populace who probably voted for Al Gore and John Kerry) tried to put many a roadblock in his path.
Post by Nevermind (942 posts) See mini bio Level 8
Bush got us into a costly war on a complete lie with "evidence" that would satisfy the burden of proof in high school theses. Osama was a very evil man (at least as far as our preferences go) and I am happy he's dead, but let's not kid ourselves and say America is such a great moral beacon in the world above everyone else.
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,746 posts) See mini bio Level 20
Probably Bin Laden, but its a shame we have to think about the answer.....
Post by Dream (7,409 posts) See mini bio Level 20
Moderator

let's not kid ourselves and say America is such a great moral beacon in the world above everyone else.



Indeed, you are right. Let's have a lookie at some examples of America not being so correct in its moral decisions:
1. Fear mongling on Muslim Americans and labeling them as extremists, especially those who have tried to set up mosques in our country.
2. Enough evidence that our government was informed before hand of the 9/11 threat by other countries, yet our politicians ignored the threat.
3. The very fact our government provided Bin Laden and his followers the very CIA training during the Cold War that would make him a threat to our country.

I could go on and on over the many screw-ups and questionable actions/decisions made by not just our government, but the media, corporations, certain organizations and even some among our very civilian population.
Post by MrDirector786 (4,503 posts) See mini bio Level 17
Bush. :P
Post by Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto (8,779 posts) See mini bio Level 18
@Dream said:
"

let's not kid ourselves and say America is such a great moral beacon in the world above everyone else.

Indeed, you are right. Let's have a lookie at some examples of America not being so correct in its moral decisions:1. Fear mongling on Muslim Americans and labeling them as extremists, especially those who have tried to set up mosques in our country.2. Enough evidence that our government was informed before hand of the 9/11 threat by other countries, yet our politicians ignored the threat.3. The very fact our government provided Bin Laden and his followers the very CIA training during the Cold War that would make him a threat to our country.I could go on and on over the many screw-ups and questionable actions/decisions made by not just our government, but the media, corporations, certain organizations and even some among our very civilian population. "
1: To allow Muslims to succeed is to allow Sharia law to prevail- a law which places Allah above everyone and everything, a law which places women lower than even the dirt which we all walk upon, a law which would allow more than just an eye for an eye
2: We were informed, all right... but Democratic politicians without enough foresight themselves to see the big picture denied action (we could've had Osama bin Laden in '97, but ASSHOLES vetoed it... Clinton administration, anyone?)
3: Once more, we didn't have the foresight to see things like 9/11 and the USS Cole down the road- we were assisting tribesmen in fighting the equally evil threat of Communism in Afghanistan in the 80's.
Post by Newdeath (18,555 posts) See mini bio Level 19
Bin Laden.

ND
Post by Nevermind (942 posts) See mini bio Level 8
@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:
1: To allow Muslims to succeed is to allow Sharia law to prevail- a law which places Allah above everyone and everything, a law which places women lower than even the dirt which we all walk upon, a law which would allow more than just an eye for an eye
Complete vagueness with what you mean by "succeed." The way you put your argument also leads to a complete non-sequitor. It also suffers from the fallacy of composition.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:
2: We were informed, all right... but Democratic politicians without enough foresight themselves to see the big picture denied action (we could've had Osama bin Laden in '97, but ASSHOLES vetoed it... Clinton administration, anyone?)
Yeah and Bush and his ilk also had very reliable information in 2001 that something was gonna happen, and yet they did nothing. Let's not be selective.

@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:
3: Once more, we didn't have the foresight to see things like 9/11 and the USS Cole down the road- we were assisting tribesmen in fighting the equally evil threat of Communism in Afghanistan in the 80's. "
It wasn't any of America's business to do so. Whether Communism came to Afghanistan had really no meaning to the U.S. or the world. The only thing America succeeded in there was spending money and training people that would later become enemies. A perfect example of the CIA's blowback theory in action.
Post by mydeathlyways (2,389 posts) See mini bio Level 10
Bush is far more evil, he's the one who started the war between Iraq and Us in the first place. We were warned several times to leave Iraq but Bush ignored the warnings and look where Bush's ignorance got us.  Iraq is a major supplier of oil to Europe and this has forced up the price of european oil. Europe is a competitor of the US in the world market so the Us end up in a stronger position competitively speaking. There are probably a thousand other reasons why the US invaded but the fact that Sadam husein was a cruel dictator had absolutely nothing to do with it if you take into account the number of dictators that the USA has financed and supported over the years.




Beside who would want to kill someone like this? 
Post by Dream (7,409 posts) See mini bio Level 20
Moderator


1: To allow Muslims to succeed is to allow Sharia law to prevail- a law which places Allah above everyone and everything, a law which places women lower than even the dirt which we all walk upon, a law which would allow more than just an eye for an eye
2: We were informed, all right... but Democratic politicians without enough foresight themselves to see the big picture denied action (we could've had Osama bin Laden in '97, but ASSHOLES vetoed it... Clinton administration, anyone?)
3: Once more, we didn't have the foresight to see things like 9/11 and the USS Cole down the road- we were assisting tribesmen in fighting the equally evil threat of Communism in Afghanistan in the 80's.


Someone's an obvious conservative.

1. You argue over the radical aspects of Islam? I could also argue over the past corruptions and violent details within the scriptures read by those that worship Christianity and Judaism.
2. As Nevermind covered, my fact applies with GW Bush and his buddies who were given notice weeks in advance that there could be a terrorist attack on American soil. The fact he didn't seriously respond to the threat in advance resulted in the events of 9/11.
3. Nothing to do with foresight. The American government was in support of a number of corrupt governments during the Cold War because they supported capitalism and/or we were on good economic relations with (Chile's militant government, Iraq under Hussein and South Africa under apartheid). As long as the factions they supported were opposed to the Soviets and communism, our government could care less at the time what kind of government and ideology were followed by those they supported.

And by the way, my arguments have nothing to do with political party lines. They have more to do with our government as a whole and the many folks, corporations, media outlets, etc... that buzz around them like a swarm of bees.
Post by rein (5,465 posts) See mini bio Level 15
I can't believe people are trying to compare Bin laden and Bush
Post by ronat1 (127 posts) See mini bio Level 18
@SSJjanemba: 
As @rein said: 

" I can't believe people are trying to compare Bin laden and Bush "

Me neither, do we actually NEED to ask ourselves who´s worst? 
Ok, both of them where really bad guys, but you just can go comparing a mass murderer with an ass hole politician. 
Post by Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto (8,779 posts) See mini bio Level 18
Better yet, let's ask this question: Who's HONESTLY worst at their job- Obama, or Bush? And actually THINK and RESEARCH trends that occurred within their tenures as President of the United States, and Brits need not apply . That means you, @Kelleth. 
Post by Nevermind (942 posts) See mini bio Level 8
@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto:  It's a tie. They both lose.
Post by Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto (8,779 posts) See mini bio Level 18
@Nevermind: Reasoning being...?
Post by mydeathlyways (2,389 posts) See mini bio Level 10
@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto: Bush is, he spend his entire term dedicated in finding Osama while Obama did it all in the spring. Plus Bush is responsible for many things, Hurricane Katrina, War between Iraq, and no child left behind act. The war started because he ignored the Iraqis when they told us they didn't want us in Iraq, and instead he denied their request and boom mad bombers start attacking because of one dumb a** who couldn't listen.
Post by Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto (8,779 posts) See mini bio Level 18
@mydeathlyways: Well, the only reason Obama was able to find him in one half term was BECAUSE of the efforts that Bush's leadership provided NATO troops over in the Middle East. Obama, on the other hand... has no military experience. Plus, Bush acted within DAYS of Katrina because of all the red tape that the Liberals were throwing in front of him. Obama? 70 days- OVER TWO MONTHS- before he even MENTIONED the oil spill in Louisiana.
Post by AgentJ (1,545 posts) See mini bio Level 13
@Makoto_Mizuhara_Sakamoto said:

" @mydeathlyways: Well, the only reason Obama was able to find him in one half term was BECAUSE of the efforts that Bush's leadership provided NATO troops over in the Middle East. Obama, on the other hand... has no military experience. Plus, Bush acted within DAYS of Katrina because of all the red tape that the Liberals were throwing in front of him. Obama? 70 days- OVER TWO MONTHS- before he even MENTIONED the oil spill in Louisiana. "

  1. Come on dude, you're sounding like a Fox zombie over here. Bush said back in 2002 that looking for Bin Laden didn't concern him any more (link here) and in 2006 shut down the special CIA unit devoted to tracking him (Obama opened that unit back up). You heard that one of the copters went down in the attack due to mechanical failure, right? Sure is nice that a president with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE had a contingency plan for that. He also made the call to do the mission IN Pakistan WITHOUT informing officials of the country or seeking permission, and operated mere yards from a Pakistani base. That takes leadership and huge cahones. Don't forget, the president is also in charge of assigning people to the right posts to get the job done. 
  2. You'll have to give me some solid proof that it was the liberals that put "red tape" in the way of Katrina relief, and please don't give me some drudge report blog or Glenn Beck's radio clips. Remember "Heckufa job Brownie"? Besides, you talk about how the troops could have "just gone in" even if Obama said not to take Bin Laden; what's to stop Bush from "just going in" and saving American lives? 
  3. Then there's the oil spill, which started on April 20th. Here are NUMEROUS articles showing him flying down to the gulf just after May 1, not long after it became apparent just how big a problem was presenting itself. ten days. Thats a far cry from the "70" days you quoted, without sources I might add. If you're going to present an argument, it might as well be backed up by facts. 
  4. Don't bother watching Fox anymore. I turned it on after they announced Osama's death, and they were reporting on rumors, like how he "had already been dead for a week" as if it was fact. It's really a joke at every level, from bias to professionalism, to editing, to straight fact-checking. At least "left wing" MSNBC is professional enough not to turn the "9/11 conspiracy" theories into something the same level as "birtherism"
Obama is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR from perfect, but he's certainly not the unholy demon spawn you think he is. Even Bush did a few things I agreed with; to pretend even your ideological enemy is wrong on all accounts is just the blind leading the blind. 

Edit: Oh, and then there's THIS lovely little gem:  

But Bush’s biggest misstep in the Bin Laden hunt occurred years before, in the early days of the war in Afghanistan. As a 2009 Senate Foreign Relations Committee reportfound, the Bush administration blew a critical opportunity to capture Bin Laden in 2001. Bin Laden was wounded and on the run, but top Bush national security officials rejected repeated pleas for reinforcements from commanders and intelligence officials fighting the terrorist leader in the caves of Tora Bora, despite the availability of resources:

Obama could have taken this route. Instead, even without military experience, he managed to get it right. 
Post by Godot (113 posts) See mini bio Level 14
Bush bashing? Is it 2004 again?
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel