http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/....ap/index.html

Bush compares Bin Laden to Lenin and Hitler and claims his intentions are similar to both Lenin's and Hitler's.

How does this make sense? First off, Bin Laden is in a far cry from a fascist dictator, let alone a communist one. What is this new found enjoyment in compairing terrorists to fascists and communists? Historically, the comparison is not even CLOSE.

How are people not getting sick of Bush's constant fishing for support by changing around his 'key words'?

 

Here is another quote from the same speach...

Link

Seems right to me.

I also think that his comparisons are pretty logical as well. Nazi fastism was rooted in a core belief that Germanic peoples were the chosen ones and Jews were the cause of all the German problems. Al Qaeda and Persian fastists believe that those that follow the Prophet Muhammed are the chosen ones and Israel & the US are the cause of all Arab/Muslim problems. Both use force as a means to their ends.

I realize that I have over-simplified the comparison of the two but I do not think they are really that far off base. Besides as long as there is a terrorist threat I think it perfectly applicable for a President to talk about it without considering it "fishing for support".

 

I understand him talking about it, and I am not condemning him for it, of course. What concerns me is the blatant lack of truth to what he says.

Sure, you can call al-Qaeda 'evil' and wrong. Thats all good and dandy. But fascist? Hardly. Fascism requires strong nationalism. Nationalism requires a state in order to exist. Al-Qaeda is NOT a state. It is a terrorist organization. They are hardly the same, and he is making a serious error if he hopes to liken WWII with our current war. They are not the same, nor should they be treated the same.

In addition, al-Qaeda does not seek to destroy the world nor dominate it's people. Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist organization's hatred toward the west is deeply rooted into history. Research the history of the middle east and the role we had in it after WWII. You will find that their hatred towards us is not completely unfounded (NOTE: Do not mistake this for me agreeing with them...).

Iran is a totally different story, although the same applies to them hatred wise. And these 'Islamic fascist' remarks are not making them like us any better.

Furthermore, Arab and Persian hatred towards Jews is completely different than the German's. Arabs and Persans hate the jews because they feel they have taken their land. Germans hated the jews because of a widespread propaganda campaign pinning the depression of Germany on them. In fact, the middle east has a history of actually embracing jews (the recent Ottoman Empire).

 

Al Qaeda wants the entire world to convert to Islam. Their most recent confirmation of this comes from Adam Ghadan in a newly released video.

Link

While Al Qaeda is not a state in the true sense, Arabs/Muslims all consider themselves the same people with a common faith. Anyone that is not like them is considered inferior or an infadel. In a sense you can consider them nationalistic as they consider themselves as part of the nation of Islam. Wikipedia touches upon this.

Wikipedia Link

I do not think that the War on Terrorism and WWII can be compared on equal footing because both are vastly different. However, there are some similarities between the two.

 

All Muslims do not think that way. In fact, you are talking about a select group of fundamentalists. Do you know that there are sects of Christianity that want to do the same thing? And they live in the US? You are over-generalizing and over-simplifying, something that is extrememely dangerous to do in our current situation. I am good friends with a number of practicing Muslims...none of which feel they are better than me or anybody else.

Islam is hardly driving the people of the Middle East together. Most of the terrorism in Iraq right now is secterian violence. In fact, Muslims have yet to form a solid, lasting government since the fall of the Ottomans (who, it should be pointed out, was open and accepting to everyone regardless of race and religion).

Dar al-Islam is long dead. It will take a common enemy and intense hatred that can hope to bring the Middle East together. So far, we are doing a good job of being that enemy.

 

Just because I mention Al Qaeda does not equate to me lumping every Muslim in that category. I never said such a thing nor made such a claim so you are wrong to assum so.

The problem now is that the small minority are the ones that have hijacked the religion and are using it to justify their means to their end.

For the same reason the Nazi party did not represent the whole of German citizens, Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions do not represent the whole of the Muslim population. But there are similarities between the two that I do not think should be ignored.

 

I will assume that either I read that wrong or it is written wrong.

The Nazi party had a huge popular support throughout the war. Al-Qaeda does not have this advantage. In all, there are VERY few similarities between Hitler and Al-Qaeda. ...And even less between Lenin and Al-Qaeda.

 

That was not written well...it was typed in haste while at work.

It is Al Qaeda and the extremists that think non-Muslims are infadels. It was not my intent to label all Arabs/Muslims with the same brush. But my understanding is that all, or a good majority, consider themselves part of the Nation of Islam. If I am wrong please correct me, but considering yourselves as one nation does not mean they all support the same people. Most of us are American but not everyone supports President Bush.

I agree that there are no similarities between Lenin and Al Qaeda. When you look at the political spectrum as a whole Lenin is on the far left and Al Qaeda the far right.

 

I was surprised at the comment, that is why I said something about it. I am happy to know that it was a mistake. You would be surprised at how many people actually believe that.

Islam is just as much of a connection between people as Christianity is/was throughout history. So it could go either way...it all depends on the leader in charge and the environment. They do see it as a weak common ground, but because of the sects involved, it is hardly enough to be labeled nationalism.