A Comparison: Bush to Hitler
#1
Posted 27 September 2005 - 09:37 PM
Extreme use of propaganda and the media. War-mongering. Declaring war on a people merely because of their race/religion. The suspension of several civil liberties. Throwing people into military prison with no charges filed, no trial, no access to a lawyer. Taking advantage of a tragedy for your own agenda (9/11 = Reichstag Fire)...
Finally, Guantanamo, where hundreds of Afghan combattants have been languishing in horrific conditions, is being turned into a concentration camp, and Bush has ordered the establishment of a kangaroo-court military tribunal assembly line that ends with a gas chamber and execution.
Of course, Hitler was a much better orator.
#3
Posted 28 September 2005 - 04:45 AM
Extreme use of propaganda and the media. War-mongering. Declaring war on a people merely because of their race/religion. The suspension of several civil liberties. Throwing people into military prison with no charges filed, no trial, no access to a lawyer. Taking advantage of a tragedy for your own agenda (9/11 = Reichstag Fire)...
Finally, Guantanamo, where hundreds of Afghan combattants have been languishing in horrific conditions, is being turned into a concentration camp, and Bush has ordered the establishment of a kangaroo-court military tribunal assembly line that ends with a gas chamber and execution.
Of course, Hitler was a much better orator.
1) Every president uses "the media" and/or "propaganda" loosely defined as trying to get yourself elected.
2) It's not a war declared against a race/religion. It's a war against an idealogy(ies). Has nothing to do with race/religion.
3) Well the difference between 9/11 and Reichstag fire is that Bush didn't actually plan 9/11.. despite what michael moore might tell you.
4) Guantanamo is not the same as concentration camps or the holocaust. When 6 million arabs/muslims die as a result of mass murdering and starvation, then start making comparisons.
#4
Posted 28 September 2005 - 06:44 AM
Okay.
Maybe Bush isn't yet the Hitler we all think of immediately upon hearing (reading) the name. But Hitler was in power for many years before becoming this cruel dictator - the transformation to the Nazi Germany we loathe the memory of was a gradual one. Is it not possible that the Bush administration is just on its way to that place?
Another difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected legally...
#5
Posted 28 September 2005 - 11:32 AM
Saudi Terrorists hijacked planes, so Bush declared war first on Afghanistan, then later on Iraq. It is not a war against an ideology, or he'd have moved in on the IRA as well, enemies of his only ally in the War on Terror. No, Bushco is running a War for Oil. And his enemy is Brown People, all of whom, including secular Saddam Hussein, he declares to be Islamic fundamentalists, and therefore terrorists, in league with Osama, who by the way has yet to be proven to be the orchestrator of the 9/11 attacks or the supplier of WMDs, Anthrax, or whatever else we're supposed to believe this likely-long-dead villain is behind.
I wouldn't say Bush is the Hitler of the 21st century, as that belittles Bush. He is much more powerful, more successful, and better supported. He will retire from office and write his memoirs, and will be remembered by many as a good Christian man who made difficult and unpopular decisions in troubled times. You had to work pretty hard in Germany in the 50s to find folks who still felt that way about Hitler.
#7
Posted 28 September 2005 - 05:33 PM
And I'd say Hitler was pretty fucking powerful. Controlled most of Europe, neh?
#9
Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:10 PM
Bush has an entire cabinet supporting him, too.
#10
Posted 28 September 2005 - 07:19 PM
#12
Posted 28 September 2005 - 08:52 PM
But yeah, there are a billion and one of these topics already, I think the board's grown quite weary of them.
#13
Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:02 PM
Oh yeah - that bit about "Godwin's Law..." When half the country and most of Western Europe is comparing Bush to Hitler in the first place, can't we set that rule aside? I just want to know everyone's view on it.
--Side Note: Yes, I'm a n00b. No, I won't always debate on what side I really believe in. It's more challenging/fun that way. So don't take me at face value all the time.
This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 28 September 2005 - 09:07 PM
#14
Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:13 PM
I'm just waiting for someone to off the bastard and his cohorts, then again they'd probably attain martyrdom. That would just plain ruin it. Obviously it's a no win situation.
edit: Maybe I'm just being silly
This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 28 September 2005 - 09:14 PM
"And the Evil that was vanquished shall rise anew. Wrapped in the guise of man shall he walk amongst the innocent and Terror shall consume they that dwell upon the Earth. The skies will rain fire. The seas shall become as blood. The righteous shall fall before the wicked! And all creation shall tremble before the burning standards of Hell!" - Mephisto
Kurgan X showed me this web comic done with Legos. It pokes fun at all six Star Wars films and I found it to be extremely entertaining.
<a href="http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html" target="_blank">http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/cast/starwars.html</a>
#15
Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:59 PM
If a Usenet discussion mentions Godwin's law as a conterrebuttal to a mention of Hitler/Nazis, then the probability of Godwin's law being disputed is equal to 1.
Bwhahahahaha!
This post has been edited by floppydisk: 28 September 2005 - 09:59 PM