I was wondering how you all feel about this. I 'll post my opinion in abit (I don't want to start off with my opinion so as to skew it any certain way)
I don't see how they could call /bin/laden MOTY at this point...
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
Oh, and I doubt Hitler starting World War II would have hurt his chances of being man of the year....
quote:
Time Magazine, January 2, 1939 said this in the "Man of the Year 1938" Issue:
"Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today"
Sig pic done with Microsoft paint, Work that doobie Pikachu.
quote:
We were all impressed when RPC wrote:
There's supposed to be a disqualification clause in there for things like what happened with WWII and with /bin/laden
I know no clause, link plz?
This is probably a good place to start looking...
Also, Stalin killed more people during his time in power than Hitler (though I suppose he did have more time in power).
Though, Mao Ze Dong has the record for most deaths due to his actions (in addition to simply killing, a lot of his policies on trading food and storing food caused a lot of people to starve to death).
Just food for thought, if that's where you were going with it.
I hope they change their minds on this, but if they dont it's of course there choice, I am sure they will lose some customers because of it though.
...but by desciption of the award, he is definately the right choice. it is for the man talked about THE MOST for the year. and that would be him.
Bin Laden's a terrorist. He isn't the mastermind of a government. Clues now indicate that Bin Laden wasn't even the brains in the operation, or if he was then he had a lot of advisors who got things done. How impressive is that? Hitler got to power due to a political/socioeconomic flux that he ruthlessly used to take power. Al Quaida was in power before Bin Laden came on the scene.
Fact is that if you take a realistic look at Bin Laden he's really not that impressive. All he's REALLY done is captured a great deal of attention. If that were the basis for a Man of the Year award, if it were how we wanted 2001 remembered in the annals of history, then shouldn't have 2000 belonged to someone like Brittney Spears? A face everyone recognize, like her or love her?
Okay, granted that's a bit extreme, but I'm sure you see my point.
Likewise, I don't much care for the notion of legitimizing any of this by putting him in the media spotlight. We've done a very good job of putting him in his role, and we've done a very good job of carefully filtering what broadcasts he's made. He is in the end a terrorist, and a terrorist who doesn't get their message out is just a criminal, and criminals are to be punished, not lauded.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
RPC had this to say about Tron:
When they voted Hitler 'Man of the Year', it was BEFORE WWII...I don't see how they could call /bin/laden MOTY at this point...
Many historians agree that if Hitler had died in 1936, he would have been thought of as one of the world's greatest leaders, easily Germany's greatest. Not excusing the things he did afterward, but you have to admit he brought Germany out of one of the world's worst depressions, built up Germany's economy, infrastructure, and made it a world power. But it all went downhill after there, obviously. But give the devil his due; up until just before WWII he did do great things fo Germany.
I don't see that bin Laden has done anything that benefitted the Al Quida, Afghanistan, or the cause of Islam. If anything, all of them are worse off because of his actions. And that's even BEFORE the terrorists attacks. You can argue that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all left some positive impact as well as negative, but I don't see how you can say that about bin Laden. Nobody's better off for any of his actions, really. Best you can say about him is he woke the US out of our complacency and ignorance about the way the rest of the world views us. But I don't think he shoulsd be applauded for it. [ 12-22-2001: Message edited by: Troodon ]
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
We were all impressed when Aaniele wrote:
I would like to point out that Roosevelt and Churchill were probably responciable (in the way Bin Laden is) for killing far more innocents in Germany during WWII. these people are heros. This is not to defent or condone the actions of Bin Laden, I'm join pointing out a diffrent view of the subject.
Uh yeah... cuz you know... 11 million jews don't count...
sorry but I disagree, even when germany was randomly bombing london with V-1's and nighttime raids U.S. and English bombing was directed at military targets. Niether side were perfect little angels granted but it's certain that Nazi Germany killed way more innocent people on purpose.
as far as Bin Laden... I don't know... yes by the criteria of the award he can be given it but then why was Sadam Hussein not man of the year? why was Lee Harvey Oswald not man of the year?
and for that matter who gave a fuck about Bin Laden before September?
Congrats to him.
GO YANKEES! 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
*on a more serious note*
I THINK HE SHOULD BURN!!! and not be man of the year. but he should be top most wanted!
