Originally Posted by Yakk

Yes. There is a difference between OBL's calls for war against the infidels, and Pat Robertson's war and violence incitement.

Pat Robertson is far better at it, and is speaking to people far more competent at mass civilian slaughter and megadeath.

OBL is a sick, old, weak man hiding in some cave somewhere.

Pat Robertson has the ear of the leader of the most aggressive military on earth, has millions of followers who believe he speaks the word of God, and has massive political power (volunteers, money, and seemingly policy) over large swaths of the dominant national party in the most militarially aggressive nation on earth.

OBL speaks those who feel hopeless and oppressed, and tells them to attack their oppressors. OBL is hunted by nearly every government on the planet. Pat Robertson is invited to the White House.

One side has nuclear bombs, can drop megatonnes of conventional explosive at will anywhere in the world -- and has shown a regular enthusiasm for doing it. The other can manage high-end paper cutters.

Forgive me if I consider Pat more dangerous than OBL.

Don't get me wrong. Both Pat and OBL are evil, dispicable men. They use religion, a tool that can bring harmony to mankind, and use it to incite death, destruction and murder. But don't expect me to respect Pat more simply because he wears suits and looks more like me.

So, what side are you on?