Muslim Congressman Compares Bush To Hitler

[anabolicrhino]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh0vo235Sc4"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

 

[Dwight Schrute]

YouTube - TUCKER: *MUSLIM* CONGRESSMAN COMPARES BUSH TO HITLER!

It amazes me how ignorant people are of Hitler.... :lol:

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Next thing you know Hitler will be the new muslim Santa Clause.

I didn't know they loved the guy that much.

 

[Rufio]

A direct comparison between Bush and Hitler is retarded, BUT comparing the media use of 9/11 to the propaganda following the Reichstagg fire is a decent parallel. Hitler used that to justify invading countries he already wanted to invade based on security and retaliation. He also called upon German patriotism.


Of course there are several BETTER parallels involving false pretexts for war. The best parallel would be the "war on drugs" being used to justify invading governments that oppose US corporate profiteering. I can see why an Arab could get overly emotional about the situation, though. Between the invasion of Iraq, leaving Afghanistan in the hands of North Alliance warlords, and vetoing the UN ceasefire regarding Gaza, there has been a significant increase in suffering in the Arab world.

Anyway I don't really get why everyone loves Hitler parallels so much. A lot of what Hitler did is standard for every country on the planet. I think Hitler just became synonymous with evil because his idealogy resembled that of a comic book supervillain and unlike most dictators, he was actually taken down in a huge war.


There was a quote from Herman Goering that I think is accurate for how MOST world leaders justify their quests for power:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 

[spunkles182]

It amazes me how ignorant people are of Hitler.... :lol:

in what ways?

 

[anabolicrhino]

A direct comparison between Bush and Hitler is retarded, BUT comparing the media use of 9/11 to the propaganda following the Reichstagg fire is a decent parallel. Hitler used that to justify invading countries he already wanted to invade based on security and retaliation. He also called upon German patriotism.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

That is a great quote I remember when Goering was on Foxnews
when he said that...and..oops:think:

One interesting parallel between the two leaders is that Prescott Bush GWB's grandfather , was the liaison between Hitler and the New York Banking interests that supported Hitler until the US government charged them with the aiding the enemy act.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

in what ways?

Character, beliefs, actions, etc....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

And sometimes it doesn't. The German people put on a nice show for the camera but public sentiment didn't approve of Hitler very much....they we're just forced to.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

A direct comparison between Bush and Hitler is retarded, BUT comparing the media use of 9/11 to the propaganda following the Reichstagg fire is a decent parallel. Hitler used that to justify invading countries he already wanted to invade based on security and retaliation. He also called upon German patriotism.

Actually he orchestrated 16 different incidents in which German soldiers attacked German targets using Polish soldier uniforms to appear that they crossed the border to attack Germany.

The Reichstag fire happened in 1933 (war started in 39) and established the Nazi party and their policies....it had little to do with invading Poland or Austria in the early years of World War II. Germany actually signed a non aggression pact with Poland in 34 in which the German public didn't agree with because of territory they received after World War I.

German patriotism had very little to do with it.

 

[CDB]

Anyway I don't really get why everyone loves Hitler parallels so much. A lot of what Hitler did is standard for every country on the planet. I think Hitler just became synonymous with evil because his idealogy resembled that of a comic book supervillain and unlike most dictators, he was actually taken down in a huge war.

He was kind of banal in himself. But, he introduced the assembly line to genocide. That's worth of a bit of notoriety.

 

[Tiberius]

He was kind of banal in himself. But, he introduced the assembly line to genocide. That's worth of a bit of notoriety.

The Ottomons were the first to do that during the Armenian genocide. They didn't organize the genocide like that though until close to the end of WWI. By the end of WWI the Ottoman empire no longer existed.

 

[CDB]

The Ottomons were the first to do that during the Armenian genocide. They didn't organize the genocide like that though until close to the end of WWI. By the end of WWI the Ottoman empire no longer existed.

They were organized but still primitive. Mass shootings and drownings, etc. Hitler actuallyhad 'factories' set up for the purpose of mass killing was my meaning. I think mass shootings were considered and rejected because of the impracticality of the idea. From home to camp, camp to gas chamber, gas chamber to incinerator, done. Neat, tidy, and efficient. Remarkably sick too.

 

[Tiberius]

They were organized but still primitive. Mass shootings and drownings, etc. Hitler actuallyhad 'factories' set up for the purpose of mass killing was my meaning. I think mass shootings were considered and rejected because of the impracticality of the idea. From home to camp, camp to gas chamber, gas chamber to incinerator, done. Neat, tidy, and efficient. Remarkably sick too.

The mass shootings in the Armenian genocide were earlier. Towards the end they had them shipped off to camps where they were systematically executed. They were very organized and systematic in their execution of the genocide. They had all Armenians stripped of property and possessions and then deported to camps. The conditions under which they were deported were so horrendous a large number died on the road to get there. The roads were literally lined with corpses.

It is believed there were around 25 concentration camps built to execute Armenians. The Ottomans experimented with various methods of mass execution including but not limited to, mass drowning, mass shooting, mass burning, and mass poisoning.

 

[texxlnghorn]

I still can't believe a muslim got elected to congress

 

[Tiberius]

I still can't believe a muslim got elected to congress

Pretty shocking. Even more shocking are the 2 Buddhists. I think no one realized that Buddhists are atheists.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Pretty shocking. Even more shocking are the 2 Buddhists. I think no one realized that Buddhists are atheists.

I personally don't find it as shocking that Buddhists got elected. When people think buddhists they think smiley asian guy in funny garb. That's a bit different than thinking "allah akbar mohammed jihad" ya know? (Hey, that's what ppl think)

 

[anabolicrhino]

Actually he orchestrated 16 different incidents in which German soldiers attacked German targets using Polish soldier uniforms to appear that they crossed the border to attack Germany.

The Reichstag fire happened in 1933 (war started in 39) and established the Nazi party and their policies....it had little to do with invading Poland or Austria in the early years of World War II. Germany actually signed a non aggression pact with Poland in 34 in which the German public didn't agree with because of territory they received after World War I.

German patriotism had very little to do with it.

I think there was some degree of nationalism, that was spurred by the very raw deal the German's got with the Treaty of Versailles.

The unfairness of that treaty made it easier to convince the average German that the world was against them

 

[anabolicrhino]

They were organized but still primitive. Mass shootings and drownings, etc. Hitler actuallyhad 'factories' set up for the purpose of mass killing was my meaning. I think mass shootings were considered and rejected because of the impracticality of the idea. From home to camp, camp to gas chamber, gas chamber to incinerator, done. Neat, tidy, and efficient. Remarkably sick too.

That efficiency was mostly due to IBM providing the accounting
tools.

 

[anabolicrhino]

The mass shootings in the Armenian genocide were earlier. Towards the end they had them shipped off to camps where they were systematically executed. They were very organized and systematic in their execution of the genocide. They had all Armenians stripped of property and possessions and then deported to camps. The conditions under which they were deported were so horrendous a large number died on the road to get there. The roads were literally lined with corpses.

It is believed there were around 25 concentration camps built to execute Armenians. The Ottomans experimented with various methods of mass execution including but not limited to, mass drowning, mass shooting, mass burning, and mass poisoning.

It fascinates me that the Armenian genocide get no historical acknowledgement.

It is also interesting that as we speak the Turkish are slaughtering the Kurds and there is no news about it

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I think there was some degree of nationalism, that was spurred by the very raw deal the German's got with the Treaty of Versailles.

The unfairness of that treaty made it easier to convince the average German that the world was against them

It was more anger, not nationalism. Nationalism played a more prominent role in domestic policy (concentration camps, pure race, cult ideology, etc..) than it did in their military campaigns. Hitler pushed more of a mythical Wagner influenced world in the long run more so than any German nationalistic thought. He more or less used it first during the early 30's then it morphed into something much different.

People were angry when Hitler signed a non aggression treaty with Poland because it was Poland that received many former German territories. He then created even more anger with staged incursions into Germany. People dind't want to invade Poland and parts of Russia because of some sense of heightened nationalism...it was more to get back what they lost.....

 

[Tiberius]

It fascinates me that the Armenian genocide get no historical acknowledgement.

It is also interesting that as we speak the Turkish are slaughtering the Kurds and there is no news about it

No the Turkish aren't "slaughtering the Kurds." What the Turkish ARE doing is hacking away at a group of psychopaths that happen to be ethnically Kurdish and call themselves the PKK. A group of people that demand that a huge chunk of southern Turkey is theirs and will kill, bomb, rape, pillage, and plunder until they get their way. They are a very very small minority and most Kurds do not agree with them.

Heck, one of my managers is Kurdish and another is Turkish and they both are constantly talking to each other about how they wish the Turkish army would go in and wipe the PKK out. The PKK has been nothing but bad news for EVERYONE.



As for the Armenian genocide, the Ottoman Empire was at fault for that, the Turkish people at fault for going along with it and the Turkish people are once again at fault for not acknowledging it actually happened. Mind you I know many Turks who do acknowledge it and recognize it for the horror that it was. But the Turkish government has not done so. Mind you there are Turkish groups that have campaigned for the government to officially acknowledge it. It can be tough to do though since the country is predominantly Muslim and Armenians are predominantly Christian.

 

[anabolicrhino]

No the Turkish aren't "slaughtering the Kurds." What the Turkish ARE doing is hacking away at a group of psychopaths that happen to be ethnically Kurdish and call themselves the PKK. A group of people that demand that a huge chunk of southern Turkey is theirs and will kill, bomb, rape, pillage, and plunder until they get their way. They are a very very small minority and most Kurds do not agree with them.



Heck, one of my managers is Kurdish and another is Turkish and they both are constantly talking to each other about how they wish the Turkish army would go in and wipe the PKK out. The PKK has been nothing but bad news for EVERYONE.

As for the Armenian genocide, the Ottoman Empire was at fault for that, the Turkish people at fault for going along with it and the Turkish people are once again at fault for not acknowledging it actually happened. Mind you I know many Turks who do acknowledge it and recognize it for the horror that it was. But the Turkish government has not done so. Mind you there are Turkish groups that have campaigned for the government to officially acknowledge it. It can be tough to do though since the country is predominantly Muslim and Armenians are predominantly Christian.

Ok, so If the PKK are the bad guys, why does the USA support them?
US signs pact
Turks question usa weapons shipment

...and who are the good guys?

 

[Tiberius]

Ok, so If the PKK are the bad guys, why does the USA support them?
US signs pact
Turks question usa weapons shipment

...and who are the good guys?

Because the US isn't always the good guy. We've supported terrorist groups in the past for money and profit, why should this be any different?

The PKK are bad. REALLY bad. Worse than Hamas.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Because the US isn't always the good guy. We've supported terrorist groups in the past for money and profit, why should this be any different?

The PKK are bad. REALLY bad. Worse than Hamas.

Yes, I think you may be on to something,but the PKK are lightly armed and would be dispatched faster than the Taliban were in Afghanistan

Then there will be Turkish troops with nothing to do except stay there and make a new border!

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m34646&hd=&size=1&l=e

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, I think you may be on to something,but the PKK are lightly armed and would be dispatched faster than the Taliban were in Afghanistan

Then there will be Turkish troops with nothing to do except stay there and make a new border!

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m34646&hd=&size=1&l=e

Not likely.

Mind you, PKK creates a large amount of anti-Kurdish sentiment in Turkey the same way Al Qaeda creates a lot of anti-Middle Eastern sentiment here in the US. Nonetheless, I think there'd only be isolated incidents of Turkish troops abusing their power. Much like US troops abusing their power in Iraq in isolated incidents. The Turkish government wouldn't let the troops stay, and they wouldn't let infractions go unpunished. Turkey is not a backwards nation. Plus they sure as heck know that the UN would step in the second they even got a wiff that Turkey might try to expand its borders.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Not likely.

Mind you, PKK creates a large amount of anti-Kurdish sentiment in Turkey the same way Al Qaeda creates a lot of anti-Middle Eastern sentiment here in the US. Nonetheless, I think there'd only be isolated incidents of Turkish troops abusing their power. Much like US troops abusing their power in Iraq in isolated incidents. The Turkish government wouldn't let the troops stay, and they wouldn't let infractions go unpunished. Turkey is not a backwards nation. Plus they sure as heck know that the UN would step in the second they even got a wiff that Turkey might try to expand its borders.

What if it was UN pre-approved ?

 

[Tiberius]

What if it was UN pre-approved ?

So you're telling me the UN would approve of Turkey expanding its borders? Somehow I don't think so. And if it does, oh well. The Turkish aren't as scary as anarchic Kurds.

 

[anabolicrhino]

So you're telling me the UN would approve of Turkey expanding its borders? Somehow I don't think so. And if it does, oh well. The Turkish aren't as scary as anarchic Kurds.

Yes , the UN exists to create a one world government where there are no borders.

The Turkish and the Kurds are just pawns on a Grand Chess Board as Zbigniew Brzezinski likes to call it.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes , the UN exists to create a one world government where there are no borders.

The Turkish and the Kurds are just pawns on a Grand Chess Board as Zbigniew Brzezinski likes to call it.

You might want to back up out of black helicopter territory there now. mmkay?

 

[raiden]

......... I think no one realized that Buddhists are atheists.

Are you sure about that? :think:

 

[anabolicrhino]

You might want to back up out of black helicopter territory there now. mmkay?

The quality of my life will not change if you refuse to accept the existence of operations beneath what is talked about in the main stream media.

However even though you are not the thought police I appreciate any advice you wish to share and I would hope you feel the same.

Here's an interesting turn of events

So, the world(US/UN) is left with an interesting dilemma. The ruling party of Turkey will be Islamic, but who are the bad guys again?

Though a NATO ally, Turkey refused to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. And it has been increasingly critical of the U.S.-backed Iraqi government's failure to crack down on Kurdish separatists it says are using Iraq's Kurdish territories as a staging area for attacks on turkish soil

 

[Dwight Schrute]

You might want to back up out of black helicopter territory there now. mmkay?

:toofunny:

 

[Tiberius]

Are you sure about that? :think:

Well if you're gonna get all technical you could say Buddhists are "pantheists" meaning they might define god as "all of existence". However even under that definition, they do not think of god as being sentient even in the slightest. So it's really the same as not believing in god at all. They do not believe in a creator, nor do they believe that there is a secret all powerful being pulling strings behind the scenes. They don't believe in all powerful beings at all.

Hence for all intents and purposes, Buddhists are atheists.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Well if you're gonna get all technical you could say Buddhists are "pantheists" meaning they might define god as "all of existence". However even under that definition, they do not think of god as being sentient even in the slightest. So it's really the same as not believing in god at all. They do not believe in a creator, nor do they believe that there is a secret all powerful being pulling strings behind the scenes. They don't believe in all powerful beings at all.

Hence for all intents and purposes, Buddhists are atheists.

Technical when Buddhists realize that they're are both everything and they are nothing, they become both sentient and not sentient. When they are sentient, their concept of god is sentient.

 

[Tiberius]

Technical when Buddhists realize that they're are both everything and they are nothing, they become both sentient and not sentient. When they are sentient, their concept of god is sentient.

Buddhists do not believe in a creator. Nor do they believe in an omnipotent being.

 

[anabolicrhino]

Buddhists do not believe in a creator. Nor do they believe in an omnipotent being.

Do you believe that the words "creator", "omnipotent being" and "sentient" are synonymous (mean the same thing) ?

Otherwise your response seems redundant to the discussion.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you believe that the words "creator", "omnipotent being" and "sentient" are synonymous (mean the same thing) ?

Otherwise your response seems redundant to the discussion.

No. Sentient means simply self aware and intelligent. it has nothing to do with a being's power. Humans are sentient. We believe Dolphins may be sentient. Chimps are almost deifnitely sentient. Cats are not sentient. Sentience really just means driven by something other than pure blind instinct.