On Bush, Hitler, and the Emperor without any Clothes

[Caleb]

Yes ... mvpel ... I have seen those videos. They are pretty horrific. I don't think I could stomach watching too much of it.

I'll spare you the ISI/Kaleid Sheik Mohammed/CIA connection. 

What I will say is that equally horrific crimes have been perpetrated by American intelligence officers.  You might want to do a little research on a thug named Klaus Barbie, for instance.  Barbie liked to rip people's skins off of them while they were still alive.  He was a former NAZI, wanted by French police but scuttled out of the country by the OSS (the precursor to the CIA.)  Eventually, he became a CIA asset working in Central America to commit atrocities on the people of South America.  The crimes of the School of the Americas are disgusting, every bit as much as what some fanatical Arabs are doing to Americans.

That's not to minimize beheadings.  Its simply to say that we have become the evil we're fighting.

[Dreepa]

So ... if I was living in NAZI Germany, would it be inappropriate to comment on how bad Hitler was?  After all, he was pretty popular.  We would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, right?  We have to modify our message to attract the most amount of people.... right?

The militant Muslims who attacked America repeatedly leading up to their devastating blow in 9/11, those militant Muslims who Bush is trying to combat, have already been engaging in genocide in Sudan (most recently) and various other places around the world going back 1400 years.

You're focused on the various faults of George Bush and his administration when there's militant Muslims out there sawing peoples' heads off as they writhe and moan in agony, and launching rockets into elementary schools, and I just don't get why you don't seem to see how ridiculous that is.

Have you ever seen one of the various head-sawing videos that various Islamic websites pass around like Pokemon cards?  It scars your psyche, even if you only witness two seconds of it, hear only one sick orgasmic shout of "Allahu akbar!" on the soundtrack.

It's kind of like bitching about Stalin's rationing policies when Hitler's army is in the process of slaughtering and starving 30 million Russians.

What is the point of this?
What does this have to do with comparing Bush to Hitler?

[srqrebel]

...Its simply to say that we have become the evil we're fighting.

Who is the "we" you are referring to?  Please do not include me in this.  It is the American government that perpetrates these things, and has been for years.

Besides, I thought the subject of the discussion was Bush, not random acts of the gov't before Bush came to power.  As for me, I am especially concerned with this president's unusual preoccupation with near-dictatorial power.

[Caleb]

 

Yes, sqr, I apologize.  Its a habit I'm trying to rid myself of.  I keep using "we" and "our" to link myself with the American government, when no such linkage is intended.

I come from a little different angle than you.  Although I'm concerned about this current President, I'm not particularly concerned about him more than any other.  I see a gradual increasing of what one cynic has called "the Imperial Presidency".  I don't hold out much hope that will change, regardless of who is in power.

I'll grant you that past actions are not always relavent, but I think they are relevant in that the American modus operendi has not changed since Eisenhower.  If we the American Government were somehow changing our their methods, that might be past history.  As it is, its merely one chapter in a long story of American aggression and atrocities, a story which unfortunately is continuing even as we speak. [whew.  I finally got one "we" right] 

Caleb

[felix.benner]

As a german I claim to have some expertise on Hitler. The parallells are not so much between Bush and Hitler but more between the Republican Party and the National Socialist Party. By combining nationalism and socialism they were a science book example of the welfare-warfare state. They wanted power and they were willing to sacrifice the human race for it. Their only problem was that coming right out of the depression fiat money wasn't going to do the trick so they took the only other option the state has: taxation. And the group with most money to be grabbed where the jews. So the national socialists took taxation to its logical limit and imprisoned the jews for bogus crimes taking all of their money and when this was not enough they made being jewish a crime. Then they realized that so many jews in so many prisons were a burden and they took the next logical step: concentration camps and genocide. Each step was a logical conclusion from the previous step (taking the perverted moraleless logic of the state). The only difference to your current situation is: You're not coming out of a great depression and there is no strong antisemitism (or anti-other-ism) in the populace the rulers can use to rob that specific group of people and you don't yet have a Hitler who had enough charisma to sway the people to the party's cause. Otherwise the patterns are the same.

[KBCraig]

http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml  For you, Kevin.    It's a third way.  Billy Graham vs. Fred Phelps is a comparison between two extremes.  There ARE people who use a third way.

That "third way" can be effective, with a very carefully targeted audience.

(Because of time constraints, I haven't listened to the MP3s there. But the titles seemed to be addressed to believers falling away, not conversion of unbelievers.)

So ... if I was living in NAZI Germany, would it be inappropriate to comment on how bad Hitler was?

Of course not. But you want draw comparisons, so let me make a direct comparison for you: If Polish terrorists had launched numerous attacks against Germany costing German lives, if French terrorists were in league with the Poles, if the Belgians, Dutch, Danes, etc., had pledge with religious fervor to destroy Germany, even at the cost of their own lives, then Hitler's foreign military actions would be comparable to Bush's.

After all, he was pretty popular.  We would catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, right?  We have to modify our message to attract the most amount of people.... right?

It's not about numbers, it's about effectiveness. If you try to attract the "most amount of people", then you duplicate the "pretty popular" message, which negates a protest message.

For the record, I created the freakin' flyer, and I sometimes disagree with it.  I mean, Bush hasn't yet resorted to genocide.

So, you're comfortable making disingenuous arguments which which you don't agree?

Honorable arguments must always be honest, and truthful.

Just so everyone understands, Caleb is not my enemy. We're on the same side. I'm just trying to gently persuade him to a wiser, more effective course. I don't disavow Caleb, nor, Russell, nor Seth, even when I disagree with them on specifics.

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

The French Underground were considered terrorists to Hitler.

Tracy

[Caleb]

Kevin,

I'm not TRYING to be disingenuous.  Its just that there is no such thing as an exact parallel between two people.  In some ways, Hitler was worse than Bush.  In some ways ... Bush is worse than Hitler.  It was fairly easy to leave Hitler's grasp and come to America.  Leaving America can be tough if they want you, and Bush and Company want to make it even harder to get out of their reach.  It is becoming increasingly difficult to put money somewhere beyond the reach of the feds.  You can't say that of Hitler.  So ... in that way he's worse.  The net is tighter around our necks than it was around the Germans.

I put Bush on the picture because he's the guy in charge now.  If Hillary were in charge, her mug would have been on the flyer.  There ARE distinct paralles (as Felix points out) between the current direction of America and NAZI Germany.  I would be remiss not to point that out, no matter how unpopular some people find that message.

Kevin, it is LAUGHABLE to portray Bush as a man who must reluctantly start a war to protect us from people who are hell-bent on killing us.  That is downright silly.  He has a lust for war.  His PNAC people have been licking their chops looking for an excuse to take over the Middle East for a long time, and used 9/11 to accomplish their agenda.

Someone said that bush started "two tiny little wars".  That is a gross understatement of what is going on.  By contrast, Hitler's wars were "tiny" - up until the French invasion.  Let's not forget that Dick Cheney has said that this war will last "beyond our lifetimes".  The scope of Bush's war knows no limits. (And the unfortunate thing is that its not just Bush.  The PNAC people have their parallels on the "left", the Warren Christopher types, who will ensure that the Democrats run only hawkish candidates, or at least, that only the Hawkish candidates have a chance at victory.)

The American wars and the Germans wars were for EXACTLY the same reason.  Look at the names:

The Third Reich (in other words, restoring Germany to her rightful place as world power).

The Project for a NEW AMERICAN CENTURY:  (Ahem ... its a bit disinginuous for anyone to claim that this group is not interested in worldwide hegemony.  Its a fact that has been reiterated time and time again by people on both the "right" and the "left".  See Pat Buchanan's book "A Republic, Not an Empire")

The only difference between the two (when you look at the warfare aspect of it) is that Hitler wanted GERMAN hegemony and Bush wants AMERICAN hegemony.  That is the ONLY difference.

The only unfortunate aspect of the parallel between the two is the whole genocide picture, which I've already granted doesn't fit Bush.  Then again, if you'll notice, I didn't say on the flyer that both men had committed genocide.

Caleb

The remainder of this message is intended only for Christians ...

by the way, Kevin, I hope you get to see the whole mp3 of "Hell's Best kept secret."  It is NOT specifically designed towards "backsliders".  He mentions the backslider phenomenon to show why other evangelism methods are not as effective.  You mentioned billy graham ... he may get a lot of decisions, but he creates a lot of backsliders too.  Comfort's point is that in order to evangelize in such a way that the message "sticks", it is important to make the person CONVICTED of their own sin.  In short, you must prick their conscience.

[tracysaboe]

Actually Middle East wars sort of do target Semites though don't they?

Is that a sort of genocide?

Tracy

[Dreepa]

Actually Middle East wars sort of do target Semites though don't they?

Well both sides are Semitic.

[tracysaboe]

That's what I mean. Encouraging wars between Israel and Arabs is anti-semetic because the only people being killed on both sides are largely semites.

Tracy

[KBCraig]

Kevin,

I'm not TRYING to be disingenuous.  Its just that there is no such thing as an exact parallel between two people. 
( . . . )
There ARE distinct paralles (as Felix points out) between the current direction of America and NAZI Germany.  I would be remiss not to point that out, no matter how unpopular some people find that message.

There are distinct parallels between all governments.


( . . . )

The remainder of this message is intended only for Christians ...

by the way, Kevin, I hope you get to see the whole mp3 of "Hell's Best kept secret."  It is NOT specifically designed towards "backsliders".  He mentions the backslider phenomenon to show why other evangelism methods are not as effective.  You mentioned billy graham ... he may get a lot of decisions, but he creates a lot of backsliders too.  Comfort's point is that in order to evangelize in such a way that the message "sticks", it is important to make the person CONVICTED of their own sin.  In short, you must prick their conscience.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I've seen many cases of tearful, blubbering, sobbing confessions after strongarm altar calls, who went right back to their old ways as soon as the emotion wore off. Of those conversions I've seen that "stick", far more were done in a quiet, loving way, more often in a living room than at an altar call.

Meaningful conviction doesn't come from me, you, or any other earthly being. True conviction comes from the Holy Spirit.

As someone once said, "Let God change the person. Your job is to arrange the introduction."

Kevin

[tracysaboe]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I've seen many cases of tearful, blubbering, sobbing confessions after strongarm altar calls, who went right back to their old ways as soon as the emotion wore off. Of those conversions I've seen that "stick", far more were done in a quiet, loving way, more often in a living room than at an altar call.

Meaningful conviction doesn't come from me, you, or any other earthly being. True conviction comes from the Holy Spirit.

As someone once said, "Let God change the person. Your job is to arrange the introduction."

Agreed.

TRacy

[Braddogg]

"The real call, not the alter call," as a pastor I know puts it.  The sinner's prayer never saved anyone, Billy Graham never saved anyone -- it is all from God.  After all, some will receive the Word of Life with gladness, but there are no roots and though they loudly shout with joy for a short time after an alter call, they wither quickly.  But all that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Him, and Jesus will not drive them away. 

[LibertyProtector]

While it's good to debate the actions that specific world leaders partake in for comparison and to hopefully to learn from, it is the concentration of power of an elected office (which by definition has a monopoly on the use of force) that causes certain people to seek out those positions of authority. One crucial component that is missing from this conversation that has yet to be explicitly stated ? perhaps because it is so commonsensical to us ? is that both Hitler and Bush and countless of other heads of state have been able to violate people's rights because they were elected by a majority of people to an office where their actions were carried out under expressed or assumed authority. Some people, whether due to apathy or rational ignorance, automatically assign legitimacy to the actions these "leaders" carry-out. The vast majority of people on this forum would advocate a minimal state of government as a way to mitigate this from occurring. My question, then, is: What would prevent the minimalist state that many of us advocate from growing to the burdensome state that exists today?