Piano Forum
Non Piano Board => Anything but piano => Topic started by: gyzzzmo on November 11, 2008, 11:43:51 AM
-
If you objectively see how Bush ruled his country by ideology and propaganda and then started attacking/threatning multiple countries without world support, couldnt you call him a mass murderer?
What is really the difference between him and rulers like Milosovich, Hitler and Hussein, didnt they all use propaganda, lies and force to go on executing their ideology, and killing hundreds of thousands of people as a consequence?
Or is Bush even worse, because he can get away with it, he cant get in jail/shot for what he did during his presidency?
gyzzzmo
-
If you objectively see how Bush ruled his country by ideology and propaganda and then started attacking/threatning multiple countries without world support, couldnt you call him a mass murderer?
What is really the difference between him and rulers like Milosovich, Hitler and Hussein, didnt they all use propaganda, lies and force to go on executing their ideology, and killing hundreds of thousands of people as a consequence?
Or is Bush even worse, because he can get away with it, he cant get in jail/shot for what he did during his presidency?
gyzzzmo
I see what you are saying but the likes of Hussein, Hitler and countless others is that they were abnormal people. I'd describe Bush as reckless, especially when it came to war on Iraq, for him it was also personal ( unfinished business ). I honestly believe, that if one is to understand the root cause of war , mass murder and the rise of evil dictators, its essential to understand history. Let me give you a brief example, Iraq, created by the British in the early 20th century, Hussain rise to power through the Baath party, the U.S support of the Baath movement through arms deal plus the eight year war with Iran and the invation of Kuwait ( also due to U.S desicion making ). 12 year sanction then suddenly 9/11 = propaganda war on Iraq ect ect. Everything has a cause and effect. Obviusly this is put into a very simplistic way, but thats how it is.
-
I see what you are saying but the likes of Hussein, Hitler and countless others is that they were abnormal people. I'd describe Bush as reckless, especially when it came to war on Iraq, for him it was also personal ( unfinished business ). I honestly believe, that if one is to understand the root cause of war , mass murder and the rise of evil dictators, its essential to understand history. Let me give you a brief example, Iraq, created by the British in the early 20th century, Hussain rise to power through the Baath party, the U.S support of the Baath movement through arms deal plus the eight year war with Iran and the invation of Kuwait ( also due to U.S desicion making ). 12 year sanction then suddenly 9/11 = propaganda war on Iraq ect ect. Everything has a cause and effect. Obviusly this is put into a very simplistic way, but thats how it is.
In what way makes this Bush differently than Hussein, Hitler or Milosovic?
-
::)
-
The main difference between G W Bush and men such as Mao Zedong, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc. in the terms suggested here is that Bush has been responsible for very few American deaths whereas the mass genocide for which the others bear culpability was on a colossal scale, especially in respect of the first-named. I am not defending Bush in other respects but I have to say that I can see no meaningful comparison between him and dictators who have knowingly presided over the slaughter of millions of their own country's population.
I am also unaware that Bush has presided over the destruction of the homes and businesses of American and other Jews as was the case with Hitler during the 1930s; where's the New York equivalent of Kristallnacht, for example? Yes, Bush has Guantanamo on his hands and this seems to me to be beyond indefensible, but comparing the sheer scale of what has happened there to the horrors of Auschwitz, Belsen and other concentration camps is both pointless and absurd.
So - Bush a modern Hitler? Nonsense! And I also take leave to doubt that Bush could paint the White House or that he actually knows one Wagner musikdrama from another (opera producers sometimes do extraordinary things these days but I've yet to hear of a Republican-funded production of Tristan und Isolde brought up to date and set among the cattle-ranchers, teamsters and oil producers of Texas)...
Best,
Alistair
-
gyzzmo=pianistimo
:P
-
Bush was never as bad to the extent of Hitler. Hitler caused a world war, sent planes over to bomb people regularly and basically caused chaos.
Bush, however, is just a prat (sorry Americans, but that is my opinion!). He isn't fit enough to be a president. He's more concerned about playing golf than issues that are affecting America.
I am greatful I am not a resident of America. I pity Americans because they have had to endure this idotic President until Obama takes up the role.
G.W.K
-
gyzzmo=pianistimo
You mjean the "gyzzzmo" that earlier today wrote
"Lets just hope for world peace's sake that Obama is not another nitwitt like Bush, who can (still) get away with killing a massive amount of people.
I find it seriously disgusting when you see that Americans only publicly dare to doubt the policy of their holy president when the next elections start."
Doesn't quite convince me, I have to say; they may each end in "mo" but that would seem to be about where any similarity ends...
Best,
Alistair
-
Bush was never as bad to the extent of Hitler. Hitler caused a world war, sent planes over to bomb people regularly and basically caused chaos.
Exactly, also the likes of Hussain, Stalin, Hitler is that they were not democratically elected.
-
Exactly, also the likes of Hussain, Stalin, Hitler is that they were not democratically elected.
Indeed, they were dicatators.
G.W.K
-
This topic is utterly shameful.
-
This topic is utterly shameful.
Agreed. I dont even beleive that someone can actually compare Bush to Hitler. It boggles the mind. I am just completely flabbergasted.
-
Let's hope Obama has Bush arrested and charged with war crimes against Iraq and first-degree murder for killing so many US soldier under false pretenses.
-
Agreed. I dont even beleive that someone can actually compare Bush to Hitler. It boggles the mind. I am just completely flabbergasted.
Had you read the question properly: you would have seen that the member was asking if others consider Bush as a modern-day version of Hitler. There are a couple of similarities ~ not many ~ but a few.
G.W.K
-
Had you read the question properly: you would have seen that the member was asking if others consider Bush as a modern-day version of Hitler. There are a couple of similarities ~ not many ~ but a few.
G.W.K
Thank you.
Ofcourse Bush isnt exactly comparisable with people like Hussein or Hitler or whatever, these are other times. My point is that Bush had certain ideals and did everything in his power to did what he wanted, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. He neglected basic human rights, he forged proof to 'justify' his actions, he mislead people in his country, he threathened people/countries who didnt agree with him ("If you're not with us, you're against us") and he totally ignored the world opinion.
And yes Ahinton you're right that things on a scale like in Auswitz did not happen, but that is not posible anymore in modern times because it cant be hidden anymore. It did happen on small scale though. There is enough evidence that people got tortured in US-prison camps and people died there, and ofcourse there is Guantanamo, nobody knows what actually happens there since nobody was allowed there. And that's why i said 'Modern Hitler'.
And btw Zheer, Hitler did get 'democraticly' elected, just as Bush 'democraticly' got elected the second time. His actions were just as undemocraticly though.
Gyzzzmo
gyzzmo=pianistimo
:P
As written in 'Donkeykong 5:19' "Thou shallst not compare mine divinity with the mere villain Pianistimo, for heaven shall fart a reign of Thalbergmads onto you"
-
Bush may be a twit but he's not actively evil like Hitler. And there's another difference, it seems to me - Hitler actually led his country personally. Practically everything Bush says is written for him by advisers and acted on by underlings. For what it's worth.
-
Bush may be a twit but he's not actively evil like Hitler. And there's another difference, it seems to me - Hitler actually led his country personally. Practically everything Bush says is written for him by advisers and acted on by underlings. For what it's worth.
'Evil' is only relative, the point is that they both had a vision and did anything to execute that vision, even if that ment that he had to ignore human rights. And you're second argument isnt really right either. Both Hitler and Bush chose their own advisors, and they decide themselves to wich advisor they listen.
-
I don't think it helps any discussion to compare anyone or any group to Hitler. Not matter how tempting it seams. Bush is obviously a huge massmurderer, but comparing x to Hitler always make you seam stupid. Comparing parts of someone to Hitler or the nazis on the other hand can be good to proove a point.
-
https://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Certificate_of_Hitlertude
-
I don't think it helps any discussion to compare anyone or any group to Hitler. Not matter how tempting it seams. Bush is obviously a huge massmurderer, but comparing x to Hitler always make you seam stupid. Comparing parts of someone to Hitler or the nazis on the other hand can be good to proove a point.
I understand it might sound silly, but by comparing Bush with a couple of 'very bad people' i try making this thread more interesting to read, and they actually do have quite abit in common. I guess my goal is to let Americans think more about what terrible things Bush did (pointles i know, but...), and hopefully think twice before voting for a type like him ;)
Its just crazy that the american media and goverment have been shouting about those 'horrible Bin Laden terrorists' and whoever they've been demonizing, while the person why caused by far most killing is their own president! If there was abit more common sense over there, they would have put him in jail years ago. Or even better... Guantanamo bay.
-
I don't think it helps any discussion to compare anyone or any group to Hitler. Not matter how tempting it seams. Bush is obviously a huge massmurderer, but comparing x to Hitler always make you seam stupid. Comparing parts of someone to Hitler or the nazis on the other hand can be good to proove a point.
I never expected such cowardice from you. You can't pretend to take the moral high road when it's clear you're plodding along in the gutter. "Bush is obviously a huge mass-murderer"? Neither Bush, nor anyone in the administration has sanctioned the intentional and indiscriminate murder of civilians. The coalition forces have made some serious mistakes in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was indeed a shame. But our societies fundamentally value the life of innocents, and thus our military forces do everything in their power to minimize civilian suffering. Those who commit crimes are accountable for their actions. On the other hand, insurgents and Islamic fanatics intentionally murder scores of Iraqi civilians with the intent of causing havoc and undermining the foundation of the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Saying that the United States is responsible for the mass murder inflicted by the people against whom we are fighting is like blaming the death of President Garfield on the doctor who treated him after having been mortally wounded by an assassin's bullet.
And the Hitler comparison is obscene to the degree that one has to question the intelligence and sanity of the person who put it forward.
Its just crazy that the american media and goverment have been shouting about those 'horrible Bin Laden terrorists' and whoever they've been demonizing, while the person why caused by far most killing is their own president! If there was abit more common sense over there, they would have put him in jail years ago. Or even better... Guantanamo bay.
Sickening, sickening, sickening. Your attempt to strike a moral equivalence between the West and the people against whom we are fighting illustrates an alarming ignorance at what either side represents.
Really, it's OK not to like the foreign policy of the Bush administration. But calling the President of the United States a mass murderer is not only completely false in practice, but suggests that the United States is ideologically as bad as people who intentionally crash commercial airliners into office buildings and think we'd be better off without women's rights, music etc. in the comfort of a 9th century style Islamic Caliphate. If the idea of a fascist, Islamic caliphate appeals to you, then maybe you're justified in saying that the United States, Britain, Canada and other countries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for freedom and democracy are as bad as those who want to destroy freedom and democracy.
-
Really, it's OK not to like the foreign policy of the Bush administration. But calling the President of the United States a mass murderer is not only completely false in practice, but suggests that the United States is ideologically as bad as people who intentionally crash commercial airliners into office buildings and think we'd be better off without women's rights, music etc. in the comfort of a 9th century style Islamic Caliphate. If the idea of a fascist, Islamic caliphate appeals to you, then maybe you're justified in saying that the United States, Britain, Canada and other countries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for freedom and democracy are as bad as those who want to destroy freedom and democracy.
I cannot help but agree with you, as I also do with Richard Black on this (see above). I hold absolutely no candle to Bush or his administration, but whilst it is undoubtedly true that he does have the inexcusable death of a fair number of people on his hands, that number is but a tiny fraction of the Iraqi, German, Russian and, above all, Chinese people who have been put to death at the hands of their own "leaders" within the past 80 years.
Best,
Alistair
-
I cannot help but agree with you, as I also do with Richard Black on this (see above). I hold absolutely no candle to Bush or his administration, but whilst it is undoubtedly true that he does have the inexcusable death of a fair number of people on his hands, that number is but a tiny fraction of the Iraqi, German, Russian and, above all, Chinese people who have been put to death at the hands of their own "leaders" within the past 80 years.
Best,
Alistair
You have my respect, sir.
-
I never expected such cowardice from you. You can't pretend to take the moral high road when it's clear you're plodding along in the gutter. "Bush is obviously a huge mass-murderer"? Neither Bush, nor anyone in the administration has sanctioned the intentional and indiscriminate murder of civilians. The coalition forces have made some serious mistakes in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was indeed a shame. But our societies fundamentally value the life of innocents, and thus our military forces do everything in their power to minimize civilian suffering. Those who commit crimes are accountable for their actions. On the other hand, insurgents and Islamic fanatics intentionally murder scores of Iraqi civilians with the intent of causing havoc and undermining the foundation of the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Saying that the United States is responsible for the mass murder inflicted by the people against whom we are fighting is like blaming the death of President Garfield on the doctor who treated him after having been mortally wounded by an assassin's bullet.
And the Hitler comparison is obscene to the degree that one has to question the intelligence and sanity of the person who put it forward.
Sickening, sickening, sickening. Your attempt to strike a moral equivalence between the West and the people against whom we are fighting illustrates an alarming ignorance at what either side represents.
Really, it's OK not to like the foreign policy of the Bush administration. But calling the President of the United States a mass murderer is not only completely false in practice, but suggests that the United States is ideologically as bad as people who intentionally crash commercial airliners into office buildings and think we'd be better off without women's rights, music etc. in the comfort of a 9th century style Islamic Caliphate. If the idea of a fascist, Islamic caliphate appeals to you, then maybe you're justified in saying that the United States, Britain, Canada and other countries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for freedom and democracy are as bad as those who want to destroy freedom and democracy.
It is funny, you should observe your own reply. If you talk about war and ideology, you use the words 'United States', if you bring up things that were going very bad in Iraq, its not the US anymore, but 'coalition forces'.
And you think that there is a difference between crashing airplaines by 'terrorists' and making war in Iraq by the USA? There is no difference, only the terrorists dont have appache's, and they cant relax in their Texas ranch. Bush just caused ALOT more deaths in Iraq and he created a much larger terrorist potential in the world.
All those terrorists, massmurderers and dictators whatever do the same: They have an ideology and do everything to reach that, ignoring value of life, human rights and 'general opinion'. Hitler caused millions of deaths, Hussein, Milosivic and Bush caused less, a 'couple of hundreds of thousands' to reach their ideology, but the fact stays the same.
gyzzzmo
-
Bush is to stupid to be a modern Hitler
-
Bush is to stupid to be a modern Hitler
Probably true :p
-
Bush is to stupid to be a modern Hitler
No more so, I suspect, than those who seriously think (or would appear to have us believe that they do) that there is any mileage whatsoever in a thread that seeks to ask so patently absurd a question as this one does...
Best,
Alistair
-
No more so, I suspect, than those who seriously think (or would appear to have us believe that they do) that there is any mileage whatsoever in a thread that seeks to ask so patently absurd a question as this one does...
Best,
Alistair
Maybe, but you've already proven that you didnt get the point of this thread. You start comparing in absolute numbers and kristallnacht etc, while the point was that Bush is a modern variant of earlier dictators who caused alot of deaths. Its about following ideologies and ignoring human rights and democracy to accomplish that ideology, with many deaths as a consequence.
-
Saying that the United States is responsible for the mass murder inflicted by the people against whom we are fighting is like blaming the death of President Garfield on the doctor who treated him after having been mortally wounded by an assassin's bullet.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262_pf.html
Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military [in Nov 2007].
-
Maybe, but you've already proven that you didnt get the point of this thread. You start comparing in absolute numbers and kristallnacht etc, while the point was that Bush is a modern variant of earlier dictators who caused alot of deaths. Its about following ideologies and ignoring human rights and democracy to accomplish that ideology, with many deaths as a consequence.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I have to point out to you that you are wrong. I am only too well aware of Bush's complicity in the deaths of various people including citizens of the country of which he has for several years been president but, when you write that "the point was that Bush is a modern variant of earlier dictators who caused alot of deaths", I have to repeat that the number for which he might reasonably be deemed responsible is vanishingly small compared to those that account for the mass genocide that has occurred in other countries. Again, whilst I repeat that I am not in any sense defending the record of the outgoing American president - not least an apparent stance over "human rights and democracy" which might reasonably be argued to look somewhat questionable in the light of Guantanamo and other examples - there is no way that he can be said to have pursued, still less fomented and established, ideologies analogous to those that were pursued with fanatical and unswerving determination by Hitler from the 1930s onwards.
Best,
Alistair
-
I never expected such cowardice from you. You can't pretend to take the moral high road when it's clear you're plodding along in the gutter. "Bush is obviously a huge mass-murderer"? Neither Bush, nor anyone in the administration has sanctioned the intentional and indiscriminate murder of civilians. The coalition forces have made some serious mistakes in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was indeed a shame. But our societies fundamentally value the life of innocents, and thus our military forces do everything in their power to minimize civilian suffering. Those who commit crimes are accountable for their actions. On the other hand, insurgents and Islamic fanatics intentionally murder scores of Iraqi civilians with the intent of causing havoc and undermining the foundation of the fledgling Iraqi democracy. Saying that the United States is responsible for the mass murder inflicted by the people against whom we are fighting is like blaming the death of President Garfield on the doctor who treated him after having been mortally wounded by an assassin's bullet.
Obviously we don't like eachother, and you probably feel a need to respond to my post.
-
The problem is just that Saddam Hussein was America's friend in those days...He did those atrocities with America's friendship and help...
... As was Bin Laden who got funded by Americans in their war vs the Russians.
-
I have to repeat that the number for which he might reasonably be deemed responsible is vanishingly small compared to those that account for the mass genocide that has occurred in other countries.
Best,
Alistair
Since you are able to say this with such certainty. I will ask you this question: Give me the exact number of people killed as a result of Saddam Hussein and the exact number of people killed as a result of Bush. Now certainly you are unable to do that, but just give an aprox. number.
-
Since you are able to say this with such certainty. I will ask you this question: Give me the exact number of people killed as a result of Saddam Hussein and the exact number of people killed as a result of Bush. Now certainly you are unable to do that, but just give an aprox. number.
OK, I accept that precise and reliable statistics in the cases of any of those despots who committed or presided over such acts of genocide against their own citizens in their own country are hard to come by, but my best understanding of the two particular instances that you cite is that many tens of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives in Iraq in this way under Hussein's régime but that only a comparative handful of Americans did so in America at the hands of Bush (and I do not, of course, include in these the people who lost their lives on 9/11). Perhaps you may have reliable and provable statistical information on one or other or even both of which I am at present unaware and, if so, please declare it and I and others may learn something useful; in the meantime, I remain dubious that Bush directly saw to the slaughter of many tens of thousands of his own countrymen in America (although I do recognise, of course, that his presidency was a good deal shorter than Hussein's premiership). As a matter of interest, would you personally include in your statistics re Bush's rôle in this all those serving American forces personnel who lost their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere? - I am specifically referring to Americans who died at Bush's hands in America itself but I am open-minded enough to take this on board as well...
Best,
Alistair
-
These kinds of value issues can be difficult for post-fascist/genocide/hyper-nationalist turned "inclusive/multicultural" Europeans to grasp. I know, the idea of taking a moral stand is just too much for some to bear!
Arguing politics with a cultural/moral relativist is almost as frustrating as trying to explain high-school geometry to a stoned skateboarder.
-
These kinds of value issues can be difficult for post-fascist/genocide/hyper-nationalist turned "inclusive/multicultural" Europeans to grasp. I know, the idea of taking a moral stand is just too much for some to bear!
Well, OK, but the latest sector of the argument here appears to be over mere statistics, in that no one is denying that Bush and the other far bigger names in the field of presidential terrorism have blood on their hands but it the sheer quantity thereof that remains in question.
Arguing politics with a cultural/moral relativist is almost as frustrating as trying to explain high-school geometry to a stoned skateboarder.
I'll endeavour to take your word for that on the tacit assumption that you have actually tried the latter(!)...
Best,
Alistair
-
Well, OK, but the latest sector of the argument here appears to be over mere statistics, in that no one is denying that Bush and the other far bigger names in the field of presidential terrorism have blood on their hands but it the sheer quantity thereof that remains in question.
I'll endeavour to take your word for that on the tacit assumption that you have actually tried the latter(!)...
Best,
Alistair
I guess we kinda agree then. I'm not doubting that Hitler was responsible for many, many more deaths than Bush is. Thats why i added the 'modern variant'.
I dont think either that in modern times genocide on the huge scale like in the world wars is possible, because we have OR a small scale war, or we nuke each other to death and there wont be much discussing left ;)
I just hope that Bush goes behind bars so the next presidents 'might' understand that they are responsible for their actions, instead of pointing fingers at the Dick Cheney's.
-
Or is Bush even worse, because he can get away with it, he cant get in jail/shot for what he did during his presidency?
gyzzzmo
Bush is as despicable as they get, because he's an avowed "Christian" who "believes" Christ sanctioned his behavior.
Even Hitler didn't go that low for justification. Plus, Hitler had some cultivation and taste: he adored Wagner and even dabbled in the fine arts.
Bush is a neanderthal. And, now, thank God, almost history.
-
Wow, quite a lot of Nazi sympathizers we've got at Pianostreet.
-
Plus, Hitler had some cultivation and taste: he adored Wagner and even dabbled in the fine arts.
Indeed, he did dabble in the fine arts if one includes ransacking museums for art treasures. As for his own paintings, one would see better in a junior school, but i guess they are of historical interest.
Not sure of the cultivation bit. Hitler admitted later in life that he was only ever comfortable in uniform in the company of his generals. He might have wished to appear cultivated, but that was not the case.
As for Wagner, i wonder if the meaning behind the music was more important to him than the music itself.
In a peverse kind of way, I feel compelled to have admiration for a man that can rise from being a peasant to almost conquering Europe. In a similar way, i can admire Stalin.
So, Bush simply isn't good enough (or bad enough) to be remotely compared to Hitler.
Thal
-
I think he is a damn fine leader and I hope him the very best and may he overcome all difficulties that lays ahead of him. I voted for Super Mario and Guy Fawkes and I´m abit dissapointed they both lost.
-
Wow, quite a lot of Nazi sympathizers we've got at Pianostreet.
Shove it. If you can't detect irony when you read it, you should at least have the grace to remain silent.
Your equation of me with Nazi sympathizers is beyond offensive. Do me the favor of ignoring all my posts in the future. You're nothing but a supercilious poseur, at best.
-
Indeed, he did dabble in the fine arts if one includes ransacking museums for art treasures. As for his own paintings, one would see better in a junior school, but i guess they are of historical interest.
In a peverse kind of way, I feel compelled to have admiration for a man that can rise from being a peasant to almost conquering Europe. In a similar way, i can admire Stalin.
So, Bush simply isn't good enough (or bad enough) to be remotely compared to Hitler.
Thal
Disclaimer: Hitler was an unforgivable monster. His interest in "fine art" began when he was a young man in Vienna and striving to be an artist. His water colors still exist. They show little talent, but, unlike Bush, they do show at attempt, at least, to cultivate some semblance of an artistic sensibility. This is NOT to redeem Hitler, but to point out his relative superiority as an "intellectual" to Bush, a documented dolt.
Hitler's appreciation of Wagner was rather sophisticated musically, despite the obvious attraction he felt for the racist, mythological strain evident in the Ring.
I'm not NOT AN APOLOGIST for Hitler. I'm simply trying to illustrate that Bush is hardly better than he is, even if he killed fewer people.
I'm beginning to wonder why I even bother to log on here.
Okay. I won't.
Bye.
-
Aww...you will be sorely missed.
...How was that for sarcasm? ::)
-
You compared the President of the United States to Hitler. Any such comparison is sufficient grounds for reasonable people to conclude that:
1. You are mistaken. (i.e., you didn't think it through, or you didn't choose your words correctly)
2. You are profoundly ignorant.
3. You are Nazi-Sympathizer.
Seriously. If you cannot deal with the consequences of your statements, go crying home to mama.
-
Well Bush never tried to take over Iraq. He wanted to set up democracy and then leave without making it part of America. He failed, and yes, as a leader he has done a lot of damage.
However, while 99% of us Americans now deeply regret the Iraq war, we were in favor of it when it started because we believed they had weapons of mass destruction. The destruction of the World Trade Center showed us that crazy people could hurt us more than we ever thought possible, so we were afraid and got lots of ideas of unexpected future horrors.
Bush was mistaken in his leadership, and we were mistaken for believing him. I for one never saw a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but Bush somehow managed to forge a connection between them in many American minds.
-
This is NOT to redeem Hitler, but to point out his relative superiority as an "intellectual" to Bush, a documented dolt.
Well, compared to Bush 99.999% of the World is an intellectual superior, and that includes single celled amoebas.
99.999% of Mars as well.
Thal
-
Wow, quite a lot of Nazi sympathizers we've got at Pianostreet.
This comment prooves my long held belife that your are on the same intelletuel as someone like Phyllis Chessler.
-
OK, I accept that precise and reliable statistics in the cases of any of those despots who committed or presided over such acts of genocide against their own citizens in their own country are hard to come by, ..........etc
Best,
Alistair
Ok, so you weren't able to do it. I don't think you understood my question. I am not asking about the number of Americans killed by Bush or the number of Iraqi's killed by Saddam Hussein, I am asking about everyone they killed. Do you think it was a worse crime by Saddam Hussein to kill the kurds in his country than it was to kill countless Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war? I never understood aىd will never understand why it is worse to kill your own people than it is to kill people of other states.
Anyway, Bush is not as bad as Hitler.
-
Aww...you will be sorely missed.
...How was that for sarcasm? ::)
Seems to be a habit of yours... ::)
G.W.K
-
I never understood aىd will never understand why it is worse to kill your own people than it is to kill people of other states.
Anyway, Bush is not as bad as Hitler.
If history has tought us one thing, it is that all wars are tragic with grave consequence that lasts well into the future. However in some exceptional cases it is possible to justify the killing of others in battle, but one can not ever justify the killing of their own people.
-
If history has tought us one thing, it is that all wars are tragic with grave consequence that lasts well into the future. However in some exceptional cases it is possible to justify the killing of others in battle, but one can not ever justify the killing of their own people.
First, if history has tought us one thing, that would be that people dont learn from history. Too many leaders including our big friend Bush ofcourse, are the nasty proof of that.
Secondly, no life is worth more than another, making a difference between 'own' people and 'enemy' is therefor silly. A funny (but not too seriously) thing is that the Americans let the Afghanistan people fight for them vs the Russians, therefor the Americans are actually fighting their 'own' people.
Plus, Bush sent USA troops to Iraq for a false reason, therefor he is sending his 'own' people into death. Bravo!
-
thing is that the Americans let the Afghanistan people fight for them vs the Russians, therefor the Americans are actually fighting their 'own' people.
Plus, Bush sent USA troops to Iraq for a false reason, therefor he is sending his 'own' people into death. Bravo!
The U.S got the Afghans to re-claim their land from Russian invaders, they were trained buy the U.S, but in no way are they American. Recently in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of the Alkaeda the U.S made it its objective to stop the Alkaeda from controling the mid-east.
You have to make a distinction between troops and civilians, these days troops in their own free will join the military to serve their own nation. Hussian un-like Bush made no distinction between civilian and troops. Either way i believe the situation in IRAQ has been tragic since the 1970. The only thing that one can hope for is that the people of Iraq re-build their nation once the U.S hands over power to the people of IRAQ.
Personaly I feel that the fall of Hussian and a chance for the Kurds of Iraq to live in a free and democratic society is what the Americans were hoping for.
-
Ok, so you weren't able to do it. I don't think you understood my question. I am not asking about the number of Americans killed by Bush or the number of Iraqi's killed by Saddam Hussein, I am asking about everyone they killed. Do you think it was a worse crime by Saddam Hussein to kill the kurds in his country than it was to kill countless Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war? I never understood aىd will never understand why it is worse to kill your own people than it is to kill people of other states.
Genocide is genocide wherever and at whomsoever's hands it is committed; I was not suggesting otherwise, but one surely cannot rule out the statistics altogether in considerations of issues such as these.
Anyway, Bush is not as bad as Hitler.
I am relieved that we can at least agree on this!
Best,
Alistair
-
Genocide is genocide wherever and at whomsoever's hands it is committed; I was not suggesting otherwise, but one surely cannot rule out the statistics altogether in considerations of issues such as these.
I am relieved that we can at least agree on this!
Best,
Alistair
Why do you keep focussed on those statistics the whole time, while the idea behind it is the point?
-
What a ridiculous topic.
Bush hobby: Golf, learning to read.
Hitler hobby: "Final solution to the Jewish question"
Difference?
sh*t after reading some of these posts I'm tempted to start a movement called "final solution for the Dumbass question".
Seriously, some of you Europeans act like innocence is human nature over there. HA!
-
What a ridiculous topic.
Hitler hobby: "Final solution to the Jewish question"
I thought his hobbies were drawing Mickey Mouse cartoons and cuddle with children...
-
Other hobbies included crapping on his girlfriends head, walking his dog, watching King Kong 500 times and listening to Wagner.
Killing millions of Jews does not seem to fit in with the word hobby very well.
Thal
-
with this economic crisis, and the Iraq War, the Bush Presidency is hated very much, indeed. Bush is the opposite of a dictator, he basically does what his friends in the oil business tell him to do.
Bush a modern Hitler? This is truly funny. Just as absurd as saying that Obama is the Antichrist.
-
Why do you keep focussed on those statistics the whole time, while the idea behind it is the point?
As I already made clear, I don't - but at the same time I think it inappropriate to ignore them altogether...
Best,
Alistair
-
Genocide is genocide wherever and at whomsoever's hands it is committed; I was not suggesting otherwise, but one surely cannot rule out the statistics altogether in considerations of issues such as these.
Best,
Alistair
I agree with you 100% that is why I ask you to provide us with the statistics wich you base you arguments on.
-
To my opinion killing hundreds of thousands if just as horrible as millions. Btw, this thread was not only about Hitler, it was about comparing Bush with other 'genocide dictators'.
-
Associated Press:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader used a racial epithet to insult Barack Obama in a message posted Wednesday, describing the president-elect in demeaning terms that imply he does the bidding of whites.
The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—"house negroes."
Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."
The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.
The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.
Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies he said are aimed at oppressing Muslims and others.
"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.
He said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.
"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.
Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was "facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see."
He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."
But Obama's professions of support for Israel during the election campaign "confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims," al-Zawahri said.
OMG AL QAEDA DOESNT LIKE OBAMA EITHER.. WHAT CAN WE DO TO EARN THEIR RESPECT AND AFFECTION? ::)
It is abundantly clear that those who hate and would do harm to America hate America for what America is and not what America does.
-
It is abundantly clear that those who hate and would do harm to America hate America for what America is and not what America does.
No. The majority of people just hate the Americans...accept it, because no one can change it.
America's actions also have an effect on people's opinions, etc towards them.
G.W.K
-
No. The majority of people just hate the Americans...accept it, because no one can change it.
America's actions also have an effect on people's opinions, etc towards them.
G.W.K
Actually we are essentially in agreement.
Here's what I *think* you are saying:
X - set of all people
x - subset - those who hate the USA and Americans no matter what they do
y - subset - those whose opinion of the United States depends on what Americans do.
Given that Al-Qaeda are ideologically committed to the hatred of the United States, they belong to the subset x.
However, I don't think anywhere near the "majority" of people in the world belong to x. As a matter of fact, I doubt even a very large minority of Muslims belong to this group. Even fewer of them are actually willing to carry out attacks against innocent civilians. But this tiny minority of fanatics is the one we've got to fight to discredit and eliminate.
-
It is abundantly clear that those who hate and would do harm to America hate America for what America is and not what America does.
This is only partially true.
Some people indeed only hate America because they have nothing better to do and some bearded lads are encouraging them to hate. BUT.
Its because of all those rediculous actions from the USA that there are so many of them, and really became a threat.
-
Associated Press:
OMG AL QAEDA DOESNT LIKE OBAMA EITHER.. WHAT CAN WE DO TO EARN THEIR RESPECT AND AFFECTION? ::)
wow
-
Al Queda's job is just to terrify the public. It's their hobby. If they think everything is too quiet or the public isn't scared anymore ~ they strike out, like the 9/11 disaster.
The 9/11 disaster is the only thing I will feel sorry towards the Americans about. They may have their stupid leaders and concepts, but they didn't deserve that. No one deserves losing their lives, or their friends/relatives lives in such a brutal manner... :'(
G.W.K
-
It was a rather effective wake up call though, however terrible.
-
The 9/11 disaster is the only thing I will feel sorry towards the Americans about. They may have their stupid leaders and concepts, but they didn't deserve that. No one deserves losing their lives, or their friends/relatives lives in such a brutal manner... :'(
G.W.K
I very disagree with you actually. Ofcourse, the Americans themselves didnt 'deserve' to get killed at 9/11, but it was very good that (maye) the Americans start understanding that their actions have consequences. For a long time American policy has been to attack countries here and there, support groups with money and weapons to change politics somewhere far away, and never had to 'pay' for their meddling with foreign politics. All that time they thought they were safe because of their superior arsenal and all that water between those countries and the US. 9/11 showed that people start getting creative in other ways to get payback and that all that water and all those weapons dont protect from terrorism/guerillia warfare.
9/11 was a payback for that meddling, pity though that at that moment they had a president who only made things worse instead of becoming wiser. Hopefully Obama does understand that diplomacy can only fix things, not weapons.
-
I very disagree with you actually. Ofcourse, the Americans themselves didnt 'deserve' to get killed at 9/11, but it was very good that (maye) the Americans start understanding that their actions have consequences. For a long time American policy has been to attack countries here and there, support groups with money and weapons to change politics somewhere far away, and never had to 'pay' for their meddling with foreign politics. All that time they thought they were safe because of their superior arsenal and all that water between those countries and the US. 9/11 showed that people start getting creative in other ways to get payback and that all that water and all those weapons dont protect from terrorism/guerillia warfare.
9/11 was a payback for that meddling, pity though that at that moment they had a president who only made things worse instead of becoming wiser. Hopefully Obama does understand that diplomacy can only fix things, not weapons.
That is a heartless reply.
The Americans do stupid things so they have to die by Al Queda's mass-murdering? "Payback for that meddling"...so if other countries do stupid things then it's OK for terrorists to start blowing them up?!?
What about my country? My home city's airport was blown up by suspected members of Al Queda! What did that city do against Al Queda? The bus that was also blown up in Edinburgh, what had they done? What about England, who's train-stations and buses were also targets?
Is all that OK? Is that "payback for that meddling" also?
G.W.K
-
That is a heartless reply.
The Americans do stupid things so they have to die by Al Queda's mass-murdering? "Payback for that meddling"...so if other countries do stupid things then it's OK for terrorists to start blowing them up?!?
What about my country? My home city's airport was blown up by suspected members of Al Queda! What did that city do against Al Queda? The bus that was also blown up in Edinburgh, what had they done? What about England, who's train-stations and buses were also targets?
Is all that OK? Is that "payback for that meddling" also?
G.W.K
What about Bali? What did they do to deserve their bars being blown up? What about...wait Australia never got hit lol
-
What about Bali? What did they do to deserve their bars being blown up? What about...wait Australia never got hit lol
I'm not joking. >:(
According to gyzzzmo, Australia need to meddle first before they deserve to all die.
G.W.K
-
I'm not joking. >:(
According to gyzzzmo, Australia need to meddle first before they deserve to all die.
G.W.K
Neither was I, Bali didn't deserve to be blown up by fertilizer!
Well they did meddle, they sent the SAS to Iraq. Maybe gyzzmo would like hijacked planes to fly into Parliament house?
-
Neither was I, Bali didn't deserve to be blown up by fertilizer!
Well they did meddle, they sent the SAS to Iraq. Maybe gyzzmo would like hijacked planes to fly into Parliament house?
*SIGHS*
You never know when to stop... ::)
G.W.K
-
I'm not joking. >:(
According to gyzzzmo, Australia need to meddle first before they deserve to all die.
G.W.K
I'd be careful what you say about Australia here if I were you, unless you specifically want to risk incurring the wrath of "ada"...
Best,
Alistair
-
I'd be careful what you say about Australia here if I were you, unless you specifically want to risk incurring the wrath of "ada"...
What? That the Aussie version of the SAS?
G.W.K
-
What? That the Aussie version of the SAS?
G.W.K
it's ADF alastair. Assuming you mean the army.
-
it's ADF alastair. Assuming you mean the army.
I doubt very much the Australian Army is going to track down a Glaswegian and kill him just because he said something about Australia in a Piano Forum. ;)
In fact, I haven't said that much anyway...
G.W.K
-
That is a heartless reply.
The Americans do stupid things so they have to die by Al Queda's mass-murdering? "Payback for that meddling"...so if other countries do stupid things then it's OK for terrorists to start blowing them up?!?
What about my country? My home city's airport was blown up by suspected members of Al Queda! What did that city do against Al Queda? The bus that was also blown up in Edinburgh, what had they done? What about England, who's train-stations and buses were also targets?
Is all that OK? Is that "payback for that meddling" also?
G.W.K
You didnt understand my reply correctly. America has done whatever they liked to do so far, they funded Bin Laden and other dictators, killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and God knows what theyre doing in Afrika to secure oil and other materials. And when another president arrives in the White House, he says like 'okay that might not have been smart....... sorry?'.
America should stop trying to solve everything with war and sending CIA to change politics somewhere, because some foreign party does more what America likes than another.
And since the USA still doesnt learn from the past, maybe they have to learn it the hard way (9/11?) that war only causes a bigger potiential for war. Those terrorists were only defending their beliefs and ideals because the US cornered them. That doesnt make those terrorists 'great guys', but theyre just as much 'bad guys' as the USA are 'bad guys'.
About the terrorist attacks in England, Australia, Bali and Spain.... If they had a cruise missile they would have sent it to Washington, but since they dont, they attack other more convenient 'Western' targets. Pity they dont only kill Americans since they are the troublemakers, but they probably cant be bothered much either, since Americans themself also kill many more civilians/non-involved people than terrorists.
So again, i'm not saying those terrorists are great guys. But just try to see it from perspective and from their sides. Theyre all a bunch of idiots, but Bush had a choise, those terrorists were much more cornered.
Gyzzzmo
PS. Some might find my ideas radical, but to my opinion most other opinions are just far too simplistic. There are always 2 sides....
-
You didnt understand my reply correctly. America has done whatever they liked to do so far, they funded Bin Laden and other dictators, killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and God knows what theyre doing in Afrika to secure oil and other materials. And when another president arrives in the White House, he says like 'okay that might not have been smart....... sorry?'.
America should stop trying to solve everything with war and sending CIA to change politics somewhere, because some foreign party does more what America likes than another.
And since the USA still doesnt learn from the past, maybe they have to learn it the hard way (9/11?) that war only causes a bigger potiential for war. Those terrorists were only defending their beliefs and ideals because the US cornered them. That doesnt make those terrorists 'great guys', but theyre just as much 'bad guys' as the USA are 'bad guys'.
About the terrorist attacks in England, Australia, Bali and Spain.... If they had a cruise missile they would have sent it to Washington, but since they dont, they attack other more convenient 'Western' targets. Pity they dont only kill Americans since they are the troublemakers, but they probably cant be bothered much either, since Americans themself also kill many more civilians/non-involved people than terrorists.
So again, i'm not saying those terrorists are great guys. But just try to see it from perspective and from their sides. Theyre all a bunch of idiots, but Bush had a choise, those terrorists were much more cornered.
Gyzzzmo
PS. Some might find my ideas radical, but to my opinion most other opinions are just far too simplistic. There are always 2 sides....
Australia was never attacked. We are straying from the point: this is about similarities between George .W. Bush and Adolf Hitler...not Al Queda.
G.W.K
-
Australia was never attacked. We are straying from the point: this is about similarities between George .W. Bush and Adolf Hitler...not Al Queda.
G.W.K
Actually simularities between dictators/massmurderers and our big friend Bush ;)
-
If you objectively see how Bush ruled his country by ideology and propaganda and then started attacking/threatning multiple countries without world support, couldnt you call him a mass murderer?
What is really the difference between him and rulers like Milosovich, Hitler and Hussein, didnt they all use propaganda, lies and force to go on executing their ideology, and killing hundreds of thousands of people as a consequence?
Or is Bush even worse, because he can get away with it, he cant get in jail/shot for what he did during his presidency?
gyzzzmo
That is the reason why you started this topic, that was the intended topic...we discuss that before you continue insulting people who lost relatives in bombings (not me, just other people).
G.W.K
-
it's ADF alastair. Assuming you mean the army.
Then do not assume. It is not. I was referring to "ada", an Australian member of this forum.
Best,
Alistair
-
I doubt very much the Australian Army is going to track down a Glaswegian and kill him just because he said something about Australia in a Piano Forum. ;)
No, but the real "ada" might do (see my previous post)...
Best,
Alistair
-
That is the reason why you started this topic, that was the intended topic...we discuss that before you continue insulting people who lost relatives in bombings (not me, just other people).
G.W.K
This confirms you still dont understand (or havent read?) my posts well. Innocent people who get killed is terrible, but that doesnt justify killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Especially if 9/11 is a reaction on USA's own meddling. Thats why people should start thinking more about action-reaction and relativate actions more. And this issue also involves the start of the thread, since its about relativation of actions.
-
This confirms you still dont understand (or havent read?) my posts well. Innocent people who get killed is terrible, but that doesnt justify killing hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Especially if 9/11 is a reaction on USA's own meddling. Thats why people should start thinking more about action-reaction and relativate actions more. And this issue also involves the start of the thread, since its about relativation of actions.
Look, I really don't care anymore. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, this thread is basically dead now...
G.W.K
-
Look, I really don't care anymore. Keep your personal opinions to yourself, this thread is basically dead now...
G.W.K
This thread still gets a new reply every day, doesnt sound dead to me. Anyway if you feel offended some way, try reading posts better wich helps alot, especially in this case and if you dont want to do that, stay off this thread, in that case this thread IS dead, but only for you.
Gyzzz
-
This thread still gets a new reply every day, doesnt sound dead to me. Anyway if you feel offended some way, try reading posts better wich helps alot, especially in this case and if you dont want to do that, stay off this thread, in that case this thread IS dead, but only for you.
And in your case: consider what other's response might be to your post BEFORE you post it and word your posts better. I read all posts...it is the way they are worded which is the problem. But of course, you'll deny that concept... ;)
G.W.K
-
I doubt very much the Australian Army is going to track down a Glaswegian and kill him just because he said something about Australia in a Piano Forum. ;)
In fact, I haven't said that much anyway...
G.W.K
It wouldn't have to be the whole ADF, just maybe a few spec ops poeple I know...
-
No, but the real "ada" might do (see my previous post)...
Best,
Alistair
what is this 'ada' you speak of? Curious.
-
Keep your personal opinions to yourself
Would not be many posts on this forum if we all did that.
Thal
-
what is this 'ada' you speak of? Curious.
Check her posts here, why don't you?
Best,
Alistair
-
I read all posts...it is the way they are worded which is the problem. But of course, you'll deny that concept... ;)
G.W.K
I might, but i'm not going to deny that concept, just to bother you :P
-
I might, but i'm not going to deny that concept, just to bother you :P
Doesn't bother me. :)
G.W.K
-
what is this 'ada' you speak of? Curious.
She's an honorable member of this forum and of https://www.venganza.org/
DISCLAIMER :o
...............................................
(I don't really know what to write there, hence the dots, but it seems appropriate to set a disclaimer nowadays ;D )