Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Um. Religion?

Satan!

[jjjimmy 0]

By way of a contrast to the "Islamic Fascist" thread:

President George W Bush has compared Osama Bin Laden to Lenin and Hitler in a speech to US military officers.

"Underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake," he said as he quoted extensively from Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures.

He said the world had ignored the writings of Lenin and Hitler "and paid a terrible price" - adding the world must not to do the same with al-Qaeda.

Mr Bush has been defending his security strategy as mid-term elections loom.

His speech on Tuesday - the day following the US Labor Day holiday - coincided with the country's traditional start date for election campaigning.

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," he said.

But, he added, the US and its allies could be confident of victory in "the great ideological struggle of the 21st Century" because "we have seen free nations defeat terror before".

Anti-terror strategy

The speech covered many of the same themes as his first address in his current five-speech series defending his administration's so-called Global War on Terror.

He outlined a newly-updated "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" document, which includes objectives such as preventing future attacks and denying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

"The best way to protect America is to stay on the offence," he said.

Other goals in the US strategy include denying terrorists control of any nation or area they could use as a refuge - an aim he linked to the continued US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with less than a week until America marks the fifth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks, he again portrayed US policy in Iraq as part of a broad strategy to maker the country safer.

He defended the controversial Patriot Act and terrorist surveillance programme, which involves the government listening in on calls between the US and foreign locations without the warrant which is normally required.

"If al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, we need to know why in order to stop attacks," he said to the applause of his audience.

Bush compares Bin Laden to Hitler

Indeed underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a mistake.When these words are used along with "We must stay on the offensive".It is very dangerous!!!

[rasmussen 0]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Um. Religion?

Satan!

Your respect for other people's opinions is greatly appreciated

[Alex+R 0]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Um. Religion?

Satan!

Your respect for other people's opinions is greatly appreciated

Hey now, I respect any opinion that has been formed based on facts.

[Marc and Olga 0]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Your comparasion is flawed... 9/11 was not about religion but about attacking Americans IN America

Even moreso your post is more an example of what I said- leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions.

Hitler vs. Jews

Bush vs. Muslims

does anyone know of a Non-muslim (majority) country that possibly deserves to be attacked more then Iraq/Iran?

I do...

In fact this country's leader is possibly worse then Saddam was and NOW has Nuclear capabilities...AND was listed in the "Axis of Evil" speech.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.

Lenin used religion as an excuse in his deciding actions as a satanist?

Do you have any idea who Lenin is?

You could make a similar argument about Hitler who was decidedly non-religious although he had issues with people belonging to a religion or as he would put it race (a very non-religious term used for a reason).

I do think you'll either need to spend some time reading up on world history or refrain from defending comparisons made by someone else who also demonstrates a need to read up on the history of the twentieth century.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hitler-comparisons always work. Lenin is a new one and seems somewhat off-key when he could be talking about Stalin, the other dictator often brought up to expose the extent of tyranny in other nations.

Yet, the comparison has to be faulty because it is highly unlikely that Bush actually read either Hitler or Lenin. Otherwise he would realize that Lenin's writing while antithetical to capitalism does not encourage killing as a solution nor does it endorse religious hatred. Hitler comes closer to these points in his book, but noone actually read the book (save some Nazi of which there weren't that many in 1925).

And even if anyone (and I'm certain he's talking about Americans) had read the books when they were published and viewed them as a warning, nothing would have happened. Because Bush in his historical ignorance forgets that the US was so isolationist that they wouldn't even join the League of Nations...

Btw, what's the name of Bin Laden's book?

Thing is I'm sure Bush (and the people who put together his speeches) actually rely on the audience not understanding the distinction.

Lenin, as you say is a curious choice, rather striking because of the fact that while he was the founder of Soviet Communism, as ideas were strictly 'anti-capitalist' rather than endorsing killing and genocide (in fact I think Lenin actually campaigned against anti-semitism). Not to mention that his writings were subject to increasingly strict censorship after his death when the Soviet totalitarian elite (under Stalin) began for take shape - which exposed the real failure of communism - which was essentially a failure to understand human nature - that no man will want more than his share. But again to blame 100 years of Russian history on one guy is a little unfair.

Still Bush said a lot about "ideologies of terror", so I'm guessing he seized on Lenin as the sole visionary behind the Soviet Union (the last "great threat"), again its not exactly a fair or honest comparison. He's trying to suggest (rather too simply IMO) that all these threats are somehow equivalent - which is plainly ridiculous.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Hitler-comparisons always work. Lenin is a new one and seems somewhat off-key when he could be talking about Stalin, the other dictator often brought up to expose the extent of tyranny in other nations.

Yet, the comparison has to be faulty because it is highly unlikely that Bush actually read either Hitler or Lenin. Otherwise he would realize that Lenin's writing while antithetical to capitalism does not encourage killing as a solution nor does it endorse religious hatred. Hitler comes closer to these points in his book, but noone actually read the book (save some Nazi of which there weren't that many in 1925).

And even if anyone (and I'm certain he's talking about Americans) had read the books when they were published and viewed them as a warning, nothing would have happened. Because Bush in his historical ignorance forgets that the US was so isolationist that they wouldn't even join the League of Nations...

Btw, what's the name of Bin Laden's book?

Thing is I'm sure Bush (and the people who put together his speeches) actually rely on the audience not understanding the distinction.

Lenin, as you say is a curious choice, rather striking because of the fact that while he was the founder of Soviet Communism, as ideas were strictly 'anti-capitalist' rather than endorsing killing and genocide (in fact I think Lenin actually campaigned against anti-semitism). Not to mention that his writings were subject to increasingly strict censorship after his death when the Soviet totalitarian elite (under Stalin) began for take shape - which exposed the real failure of communism - which was essentially a failure to understand human nature - that no man will want more than his share. But again to blame 100 years of Russian history on one guy is a little unfair.

Still Bush said a lot about "ideologies of terror", so I'm guessing he seized on Lenin as the sole visionary behind the Soviet Union (the last "great threat"), again its not exactly a fair or honest comparison. He's trying to suggest (rather too simply IMO) that all these threats are somehow equivalent - which is plainly ridiculous.

Yup. The motivations are clear, and of course given the dismal state of education (particularly in the humanities) he can rely on his listeners not picking up on his historical revisionism. But even from Bush's perspective, Lenin is a bad choice because his audience most likely hasn't heard of him. If people think Soviet Union (or as it is anachronistically called, "Russia"), they are prone to think Stalin, the epitomy of "communism" in the US since the early 1930s.

Yet, by invoking past threats he deludes his audience into believing that it's all the same even though Bin Laden is not a dictator nor is Al-Qaeda a country nor is terrorism an ideology. It seems so obvious...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hitler-comparisons always work. Lenin is a new one and seems somewhat off-key when he could be talking about Stalin, the other dictator often brought up to expose the extent of tyranny in other nations.

Yet, the comparison has to be faulty because it is highly unlikely that Bush actually read either Hitler or Lenin. Otherwise he would realize that Lenin's writing while antithetical to capitalism does not encourage killing as a solution nor does it endorse religious hatred. Hitler comes closer to these points in his book, but noone actually read the book (save some Nazi of which there weren't that many in 1925).

And even if anyone (and I'm certain he's talking about Americans) had read the books when they were published and viewed them as a warning, nothing would have happened. Because Bush in his historical ignorance forgets that the US was so isolationist that they wouldn't even join the League of Nations...

Btw, what's the name of Bin Laden's book?

Thing is I'm sure Bush (and the people who put together his speeches) actually rely on the audience not understanding the distinction.

Lenin, as you say is a curious choice, rather striking because of the fact that while he was the founder of Soviet Communism, as ideas were strictly 'anti-capitalist' rather than endorsing killing and genocide (in fact I think Lenin actually campaigned against anti-semitism). Not to mention that his writings were subject to increasingly strict censorship after his death when the Soviet totalitarian elite (under Stalin) began for take shape - which exposed the real failure of communism - which was essentially a failure to understand human nature - that no man will want more than his share. But again to blame 100 years of Russian history on one guy is a little unfair.

Still Bush said a lot about "ideologies of terror", so I'm guessing he seized on Lenin as the sole visionary behind the Soviet Union (the last "great threat"), again its not exactly a fair or honest comparison. He's trying to suggest (rather too simply IMO) that all these threats are somehow equivalent - which is plainly ridiculous.

Yup. The motivations are clear, and of course given the dismal state of education (particularly in the humanities) he can rely on his listeners not picking up on his historical revisionism. But even from Bush's perspective, Lenin is a bad choice because his audience most likely hasn't heard of him. If people think Soviet Union (or as it is anachronistically called, "Russia"), they are prone to think Stalin, the epitomy of "communism" in the US since the early 1930s.

Yet, by invoking past threats he deludes his audience into believing that it's all the same even though Bin Laden is not a dictator nor is Al-Qaeda a country nor is terrorism an ideology. It seems so obvious...

Neither it might be said, is Al Qaeda in charge of any country, let alone one with significant natural resources and a developed industrial / economic infrastructure. In fact, it might be said that their ideology doesn't lend itself well to that type of militarisation. Nearly 20 years after the russians pulled out of Afghanistan, despite having the dubious distinction of the world's largest heroin producing operation, it was still little more than a sandpit when we went in there to find Bin Laden.

So while isolated acts of terrorism are the major threat posed to the US and other developed nations, its extremely unlikely that the strategy with destabilise the government to any great degree. Again I can't think of any examples off-hand whereby a modern democratic government has been defeated solely by acts of terrorism. Someone mentioned Franz Ferdinand and WW1, but that is of course a similarly faulty comparison.

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

So while isolated acts of terrorism are the major threat posed to the US and other developed nations, its extremely unlikely that the strategy with destabilise the government to any great degree. Again I can't think of any examples off-hand whereby a modern democratic government has been defeated solely by acts of terrorism. Someone mentioned Franz Ferdinand and WW1, but that is of course a similarly faulty comparison.

franz ferdinand and ww1 was faulty in comparison by the limits (democratic government) you put in your question it still remains an example of terrorism that changed governments and indeed the world.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So while isolated acts of terrorism are the major threat posed to the US and other developed nations, its extremely unlikely that the strategy with destabilise the government to any great degree. Again I can't think of any examples off-hand whereby a modern democratic government has been defeated solely by acts of terrorism. Someone mentioned Franz Ferdinand and WW1, but that is of course a similarly faulty comparison.

franz ferdinand and ww1 was faulty in comparison by the limits (democratic government) you put in your question it still remains an example of terrorism that changed governments and indeed the world.

Because the system of government it changed was unstable and fundamentally flawed. In fact, most of the governmental systems in continental Europe at that time were still monarchical in nature, bits and pieces of old empires, ruled by the aristocracy.

Might as well ask why JFK's assassination didn't provoke WW3.

As I said, Monarchy and Democracy are more than a turn of phrase. In fact, if you look at the middle-east, many of the countries in the region are monarchies or other, equivalent forms of tyrannical government. They are also the most unstable. Coincidence?

Edited September 6, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 12,878]

Because the system of government it changed was unstable and fundamentally flawed. In fact, most of the governmental systems in continental Europe at that time were still monarchical in nature, bits and pieces of old empires, ruled by the aristocracy.

Might as well ask why JFK's assassination didn't provoke WW3.

As I said, Monarchy and Democracy are more than a turn of phrase. In fact, if you look at the middle-east, many of the countries in the region are monarchies or other, equivalent forms of tyrannical government. They are also the most unstable. Coincidence?

it's debatable if they are unstable, given that those types of governments only answer to themselves and are able to write laws as they see fit. a case in point - saddam - no way would he have been toppled from within due to the draconian measures he had in place to control the population. such measures are probably not unheard of in the countries you reference above. remember that saying about 3 people conspiring in the ussr? 2 are kgb agents and the 3rd is a fool? same thing probably applies in those middle east monarchies.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Hmm.... I just saw on the Daily Show the other night that Bush said bin laden isn't really important and he's not too concerned with him... 'terrorism is bigger than one man' or something like that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmm.... I just saw on the Daily Show the other night that Bush said bin laden isn't really important and he's not too concerned with him... 'terrorism is bigger than one man' or something like that?

A shame - I liked the idea that Ernst Stavro Blofeld was behind all the world's evils

[Fischkoepfin 1]

So while isolated acts of terrorism are the major threat posed to the US and other developed nations, its extremely unlikely that the strategy with destabilise the government to any great degree. Again I can't think of any examples off-hand whereby a modern democratic government has been defeated solely by acts of terrorism. Someone mentioned Franz Ferdinand and WW1, but that is of course a similarly faulty comparison.

franz ferdinand and ww1 was faulty in comparison by the limits (democratic government) you put in your question it still remains an example of terrorism that changed governments and indeed the world.

Because the system of government it changed was unstable and fundamentally flawed. In fact, most of the governmental systems in continental Europe at that time were still monarchical in nature, bits and pieces of old empires, ruled by the aristocracy.

Might as well ask why JFK's assassination didn't provoke WW3.

As I said, Monarchy and Democracy are more than a turn of phrase. In fact, if you look at the middle-east, many of the countries in the region are monarchies or other, equivalent forms of tyrannical government. They are also the most unstable. Coincidence?

What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.

And I agree with you, monarchies and democracies (particularly the non-parliamentary kind) are very similar in that the power is invested in a single person which rules supported by a parliament. The Austrian government at the time was not unstable because it was a monarchy but because its subjects had discovered nationalism.

Finally, I can't think of a modern democracy overthrown exclusively by terrorism, unless you'd count the Nazis as a terrorist organization (they did after all beat up lots of people in the twenties and led to an increasing polarization of society). Yet, even they needed to be elected to gain power. It seems that if at al national terror organization could have a shot at overturning a national government, and even then it is usually because the government paves the way by relinquishing civil liberties first. International terror does not have that option...