Well, well, i am back with a new thread. And it seems George W. Bush has compared Osama Bin Laden to Hitler( in his latest speech), and Lenin. The Speech was supposed to be about Iraq, but he moved it to talking about Osama, terroists, and how we need to " stay the course ". That it will take sacrifice.

I find it interesting that he considers Osama a Hitler type but does not think finding Osama is important, at least thats what he said a few years ago, when he couldn't find Bin Laden.

So, i think the sppech was basicly a way to keep up the thought process that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, even though no links have been made. To make Osama seem more dangerous then he is, so americans are scared. But in the end i think comparing Osama to Hitler, was just plain foolish, yes both are evil, but different degrees, and WWII is much diffrent then the Iraq war, one is a defesive war the other offensive( for the United States).

But enought about my unneeded thoughts, what do you think? Do you think Osama is as horrible as Hitler, do you think the Iraq war is connected to "the global war on terror?"( you can't have a war on terror(( terror is an emotion)), but Bush says you can so i guess you can).

Last but not least, is Iraq like WWII?

Shinsengumi89

I agree with the comparison but like everything there are riders to that agreement.
Hitler and Bin Laden (apparently) are very charismatic men who can rally many people to their cause via various means. Lenin's iron grip on Russia is similar to the ideology that Bin Laden and the Taliban espouse in that they are totalitarian in styling. Is Bin Laden the next Hitler or Lenin? Well no not really since the circumstances are so different but he is similar to them in specific ways.
As for Bin Laden, he was, is and will continue to be dangerous even after he is dead (think matyr). That point in my mind is not really debatable given his history.
As to the terror remark this is probably due to the evolution of speech where "War on terror" becomes synonomous with the current attempts to readicate terrorism.

Of course it was foolish. But humans being humans, we are fueled by drama - what better drama is there than to say that we are a part of something on the level of our grandfathers' fight against the Nazi regime? Heck, let's do a reality tv show on it!

merged: 09-06-2006 ~ 02:38pm
Of course it was foolish. But humans being humans, we are fueled by drama - what better drama is there than to say that we are a part of something on the level of our grandfathers' fight against the Nazi regime? Heck, let's do a reality tv show on it!

No, Hilter & Osama are different peoples with different life backgrounds. At least, Hilter wasn't always hide from public views unlike Osama who is still unseen and still believe to be alive somewhere in Afghan-Pakistan's border.

Nah, it was bad comparsion. Hitler was a dictator, Bin Laden is a terrorist. And about Lenin, it was really inappropriate comparsion: he'd never propagandized totalitarianism.

Quote by MnemethHitler and Bin Laden (apparently) are very charismatic men who can rally many people to their cause via various means. Lenin's iron grip on Russia is similar to the ideology that Bin Laden and the Taliban espouse in that they are totalitarian in styling. Is Bin Laden the next Hitler or Lenin? Well no not really since the circumstances are so different but he is similar to them in specific ways.

Agreed. Finally, someone who knows a little something about World History! Yes, they do have a nuber of things in common, and Bush didn't state that they were exactly alike, now did he? Just the same as the media telling America that Bush didn't pass the act to give Katrina victims more money, but didn't list all the added things on the bill that had nothing to do with said victims. If he didn't say 'completely' or 'exactly', then he wasn't really wrong. Just a little misleading to the common people who haven't studied or really gotten into reading about the pasts of all three people. As a fan of reading and of current and past events, I've read a number of stories aswell as a few smaller articles (from reliable sources, of course) and have found points that were very much the same in each person.

So, is Iraq like WWII? No. But, does that make the fact that there really are some things that are very much alike in the threenot true? Not at all.

Let's scare people with dramatic comparisons! And just in time to boost popular support, so they'll think of voting republican in the next election!
Hitler and Lenin were leaders of countries. Dictators. They can be more easily compared to Saddam (but then since Bush switched the two long ago, I'm not surprised). Bin Laden may have a totalitarian ideology through fundamentalist islam, but that does not put him on the level of Hitler or Stalin because he does not hold the power of the state. He relies on popular support. Without that, if islamic states take a more moderate route (like Jordan, or like Saudi Arabia seems to be attempting), his power would automatically and drastically wane. The reason for this inflamation of the population for terrorrism? Why, american involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole business with Israel. I am not saying we should "cut and run" or abandon Israel to a possibly nuclear Iran, but the US should stop going in the Middle East gung-ho, barrels blazing, and not expect the delicate balances there to shift. Diplomacy is key.

Well, i appricate all coments and in many respects each has a point. To add Hitler looked up to the United Kingdom and the power they had, Bin Laden hates the United Kingdom. 2nd, their attack tactics are totally different. One came to power democraticly elected, the other is just a "radical religous" leader. The other wanted to kill everyone, Bin laden everyone who will not convert to Islam. I know it seems like splitting hairs. But one could rally the world the other just a region, and only because he is using religon and twisiting it.( though hitler usded anger in the same wame way, they used it in two totally different ways.

I could go on and on, they do have slight similarities but so does every leader, Bill Clinton Is Charasmatic too Many people but it dosent make him like Hitler does it?. No.

But again you all are right in your own respects, i should have been more specific.

Shinsengumi89

* Keep Posting

To compare Adolph Hitler to Osama Bin Laden as equals, no way ! Bin laden uses terrorist tactics to destroy those who are "Infidels" and a threat to his world of Islam. Hitler, on the other hand was a master of getting the crowds (german crowds interested in a topic (I. E. Jewish people), then over a period of time, getting the audience into an orgasmic high, ready to kill, to donate to the Nazi cause. Hitler had a dream, even though it was warped. He almost won ! At least the United States had allies to fight with. Today, the U.S. has very little allied help in Iraq. I wonder why ? LoL !

Sure, Osama Bin Laden may be a boogie man of our times and yes, he is a threat to whose security, ours or the President. Hell, President Bush (and his administration lost track of the Prize) lost track of Bin Laden when he ordered the U.S military over to Iraq. Now, he is talking about Bin Laden, with the mid term elections coming up in November. Sigh !

Hitler hated everyone who was a Jew or any other person who did not suscribed to the Nazi way of thinking.

Granted , Bin Laden hates those persons who does not adhere to his interpertation of Islam. If any one asks me, they both "F***** Haters !"

Shinsen, if your thoughts are unneeded, why put them there in the first place?

And if Bush truly didn't care about bin Laden, we wouldn't have troops combing Afghanistan and intelligence agents combing the world for him.

There's similarities between Osama and Hitler-- hatred of a race (or nationality), their charisma that brings them followers, power... but I'm not too fond of comparing people. Each individual is their own individual.

Osama is very dangerous. Do not be naive.

Then why exactly did the focus shift suddenly from Osama to Saddam when Bush wanted to attack Irak? Now, since the Senate is reestablishing trurth, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or even al-Qaeda, yes, the search is on again; while four years of needless war have passed and all trails are nice and cold. Osama may be dangerous, but not as dangerous a leader who undermines the checks and balances to do what he wants, and who ignores such a threat (which has already struck) to go fight an irrelevant war, alienating the vast majority of the world and ignoring practically every war convention on the planet. Don't be naive yourself.

Quote by Shinsengumi89 I could go on and on, they do have slight similarities but so does every leader, Bill Clinton Is Charasmatic too Many people but it dosent make him like Hitler does it?. No.

It's not only about what they have in common. Sure, Clinton had a bit of charisma, but Clinton didn't use it in the same way the people being compaired did (or are).

This once again proves Geroge Weasel Bush is a fag. Hitler was 1000x more terrible than Bin Laden is. Hitler butchered millions of Jews, homosexuals, jypsies, ect... and actually attempted to take over the world-and he got pretty far. Bin Laden is living out the rest of his days in hiding in mountains. For all we know could be dead, and that these videos about him interviewing people can be several months/years old. Bin Laden may be bad, but Hitler was far worse. GWB needs to retake history class or sumthing.

I believe that there is a consider degree of difference between Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. The reason for this is that Hitler was going for genocide. and he was a million times more powerful than Osama Bin Laden is. During WWII how many troops did America lose compared to the number of troops we have lost in Afghanistan + Iraq + Terrorists Attacks? (If it isn't obvious, it is a HUGE difference.)

Compare to Hitler, Osama Bin Laden is a Buddha I guess. Hitler is more cold-blooded than Osama Bin Laden. First, he killed more people than Osama Bin Laden, or at least make them suffer. Second, he doesn't spare anyone who has different race other than German. He is a absolutist. And WWII seems more fierce than Iraq and more parties are involved. That means more victims to die. But nonetheless, I disagreed about the war that George W. Bush waged just for some nuclear excuse.

Again, please do not resurrect inactive threads, particularly those that have been inactive for nearly a year.