T Nation

Al-Qaeda In Congress II

In my previous thread about this Satanist, I warned about the evil being introduced into Congress (which is already evil enough). Elected by immigrant Muslims in Minnesota, let in by Ted Kennedy back in the 60s!

Satanism!!

"Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 3:32pm BST 16/07/2007

Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November

America’s first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler’s later seizure of emergency powers.

“It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that,” Mr Ellison said. “After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml

And the fact that he’s a Muslim factors into this… how?

Plenty of people have made this comparison. Hell, a congressman compared our nation to Star Trek.

Get over it.

Ellison is a disgusting person for making this asinine comparison.

It is shameful.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Ellison is a disgusting person for making this asinine comparison.

It is shameful.[/quote]

An asinine comparison? Yes. A disgusting person for making it? That depends.

Is our entire congress disgusting? Almost all of them have made some statement or another that was equally repugnant at one point or another.

Seriously, we’ve seen Star Trek, ‘series of tubes’, Maccaca, comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany…

The whole government is filled with people who make retarded, asinine metaphors and comparisons.

Learn to get over it. Whats the rest of this guys policies like? Hows he liked in his district? Is he doing anything at all? Voting records? How’s he actually doing as a congressman? That’s what actually concerns me, not whether or not he likes Dubya, or what his opinions on Bush Junior are.

Comparing Bush to a creature who murdered millions for the supposed benefit of the Aryan Race is simply insane.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Comparing Bush to a creature who murdered millions for the supposed benefit of the Aryan Race is simply insane.[/quote]

What a pile of crap you guys are spewing. From what you have quoted he compared two events and suggested that both were used to consolidate power.

Would you disagree that after 9/11 the government increased it’s powers and that the president pretty much had a blank check as long as what he was doing was aimed at terrorists?

Enough of the political spin, the guy is making a comparison. Agree or disagree, but try a little reading comprehension in the process so you don’t sound like a halfwit.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Comparing Bush to a creature who murdered millions for the supposed benefit of the Aryan Race is simply insane.

What a pile of crap you guys are spewing. From what you have quoted he compared two events and suggested that both were used to consolidate power.

Would you disagree that after 9/11 the government increased it’s powers and that the president pretty much had a blank check as long as what he was doing was aimed at terrorists?

Enough of the political spin, the guy is making a comparison. Agree or disagree, but try a little reading comprehension in the process so you don’t sound like a halfwit.[/quote]

Suppose you shot and killed an intruder who was attempting to rape your teen daughter at knifepoint. The intruder’s bereaved mother calls you a butcher and a murderer.

She’s only making a comparison…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Suppose you shot and killed an intruder who was attempting to rape your teen daughter at knifepoint. The intruder’s bereaved mother calls you a butcher and a murderer.

She’s only making a comparison…[/quote]

Right. That is the problem anytime we hear the 9-11/Burning of the Reichstag comparison: it is always qualified with a “I’m not saying Bush is Hitler, but…”

Well, government will always expand after an act of terror or war - nothing new there. Lincoln expanded - but no one is falling over themselves to compare his acts to the burning of the Reichstag. FDR expanded government power after Pearl Harbor - but no one compares it to the burning of the Reichstag.

But we get it with Bush - why? Because the proclaimer of the comparison really does want the comparison between Bush and Hitler, they just don’t want to be on the hook for saying it.

After all, the burning of the Reichstag incident is not merely notable because the government expanding powers after an attack - else, the comparison would be apt in all situations (see FDR, above).

No, the point is that Hitler purposely used the burning of the Reichstag in bad faith to exploit his war powers so he could build his evil Reich. That is wholly different than a “mere expansion of government powers” - it is an expansion of government powers with a specific, sinister objective.

That is why the comparison is used, of course it is. Those who make the comparison want to insinuate not just that Bush has expanded government powers, as all wartime presidents do, but that he has done so that he can aggregate power for nefarious ends.

They want the comparison to stick that way, but they always want to leave an out so when someone of sane mind tells them how ludicrous the comparison is, they can claim “I didn’t mean it like that…”

Congressional hustler Ellison wants it both ways: he wants to say it, and then qualify it by saying he didn’t say what you think he said.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
After all, the burning of the Reichstag incident is not merely notable because the government expanding powers after an attack - else, the comparison would be apt in all situations (see FDR, above).

No, the point is that Hitler purposely used the burning of the Reichstag in bad faith to exploit his war powers so he could build his evil Reich. That is wholly different than a “mere expansion of government powers” - it is an expansion of government powers with a specific, sinister objective.

That is why the comparison is used, of course it is. Those who make the comparison want to insinuate not just that Bush has expanded government powers, as all wartime presidents do, but that he has done so that he can aggregate power for nefarious ends.

They want the comparison to stick that way, but they always want to leave an out so when someone of sane mind tells them how ludicrous the comparison is, they can claim “I didn’t mean it like that…”

Congressional hustler Ellison wants it both ways: he wants to say it, and then qualify it by saying he didn’t say what you think he said.[/quote]

Thunder:

I wasn’t there and didn’t hear him speak, but I read this a different way.

I didn’t see him back down from the comparison at all. He doesn’t think this was a mere expansion of powers…he DOES believe that Bush used 9/11 in bad faith to expand his war powers and exploit them. And that’s an opinion that many people share, and is a valid one.

If speaking that opinion is “shameful” then we might as well throw any kind of meaningful discussion out of the window right now.

His qualification was that he didn’t believe that Bush perpetrated the act. He believes the attack was exploited in bad faith, like the burning of the Reichstag, but that Bush didn’t cause 9/11, whereas Hitler may have been responsible for the Reichstag.

Sounds like a reasonably formed analogy to me. Now personally, I don’t actually believe Bush acted “nefariously”, but the congressman does, and he isn’t evil or shameful for holding that opinion.

Now that said, was a comparison to the Reichstag even necessary? No…but that par for the course nowadays. Just read the title of this thread. You have people that will call these kinds of histrionics shameful and in the same breath call a United States congressman a member of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. How can you take any of this seriously anymore?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, government will always expand after an act of terror or war - nothing new there. Lincoln expanded - but no one is falling over themselves to compare his acts to the burning of the Reichstag. FDR expanded government power after Pearl Harbor - but no one compares it to the burning of the Reichstag.
[/quote]

By the way, I routinely hear conservatives compare FDR’s term in office to Stalinist Russia and other communist dictatorships. The histrionics really are not one-sided.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

Thunder:

I wasn’t there and didn’t hear him speak, but I read this a different way.

I didn’t see him back down from the comparison at all. He doesn’t think this was a mere expansion of powers…he DOES believe that Bush used 9/11 in bad faith to expand his war powers and exploit them. And that’s an opinion that many people share, and is a valid one. [/quote]

No problem - if that be true, then he is making a direct comparison of Bush to Hitler.

I don’t buy into that kind of non-judgmentalism.

For a discussion to be “meaningful”, it has to be just that - and when it is based on wacky comparisons that are essentially ridiculous on their face.

For example, what nefarious ends is Ellison talking about? He never says. Hitler wanted to round up Jews and slaughter them by the thousands. Ellison doesn’t tell us what Bush’s sinister plans are.

So - you want to make a comparison to the worst man in history, for a “meaningful” discussion, you better have something other than bombastic rhetoric, and if you don’t, well, I personally am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

A flimsy distinction - and even less of a one I had attributed to him.

Are you serious? On what basis? What has “reasonably informed” Ellison to think Bush has Hitler-esque nefarious designs on exploiting a terror act?

Because, you’ll note, Ellison never says. So what is your basis for thinking so?

He certainly is shameful - you think every opinion held, no matter ludicrous, deserves your respect?

You are right - that is the problem. I think Ellison’s histrionics make for bad discussions and are shameful by the fruits of what they generate - you, on one hand, decry histrionics and yet, on another hand, think such histrionics should be part of a meaningful discussion.

I don’t.

And just because I say his remarks are “shameful” doesn’t somehow mean he isn’t entitled to them - just that no one should privilege such moonbattery as legitimate discussion.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Suppose you shot and killed an intruder who was attempting to rape your teen daughter at knifepoint. The intruder’s bereaved mother calls you a butcher and a murderer.

She’s only making a comparison…

Right. That is the problem anytime we hear the 9-11/Burning of the Reichstag comparison: it is always qualified with a “I’m not saying Bush is Hitler, but…”

Well, government will always expand after an act of terror or war - nothing new there. Lincoln expanded - but no one is falling over themselves to compare his acts to the burning of the Reichstag. FDR expanded government power after Pearl Harbor - but no one compares it to the burning of the Reichstag.

But we get it with Bush - why? Because the proclaimer of the comparison really does want the comparison between Bush and Hitler, they just don’t want to be on the hook for saying it.

After all, the burning of the Reichstag incident is not merely notable because the government expanding powers after an attack - else, the comparison would be apt in all situations (see FDR, above).

No, the point is that Hitler purposely used the burning of the Reichstag in bad faith to exploit his war powers so he could build his evil Reich. That is wholly different than a “mere expansion of government powers” - it is an expansion of government powers with a specific, sinister objective.

That is why the comparison is used, of course it is. Those who make the comparison want to insinuate not just that Bush has expanded government powers, as all wartime presidents do, but that he has done so that he can aggregate power for nefarious ends.

They want the comparison to stick that way, but they always want to leave an out so when someone of sane mind tells them how ludicrous the comparison is, they can claim “I didn’t mean it like that…”

Congressional hustler Ellison wants it both ways: he wants to say it, and then qualify it by saying he didn’t say what you think he said.[/quote]

I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard the FDR-Reichstag comparison plenty…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 3:32pm BST 16/07/2007

Keith Ellison, a convert to Islam, has cultivated a moderate image since being elected last November

[/quote]

He can’t say that! The holocaust never happened! That is unless he meant it as a compliment.

Comparisons between Hitler and Bush are obviously stupid.

Hitler was an excellent public speaker, a decorated war veteran and never did drugs his whole life.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Sounds like a reasonably formed analogy to me.

Are you serious? On what basis? What has “reasonably informed” Ellison to think Bush has Hitler-esque nefarious designs on exploiting a terror act?

Because, you’ll note, Ellison never says. So what is your basis for thinking so?
[/quote]

Notice I said “reasonably formed”, not “reasonably informed”. I’m commenting on the syntax, not the content. The analogy was constructed well enough that you understood his meaning. Was his analogy extreme? Yes. Does that make his opinion unworthy of debate? I don’t think so.

My point is, the opinion that Bush exploited 9/11 in bad faith is not ludicrous. It is worth debating.

[quote]
Now that said, was a comparison to the Reichstag even necessary? No…but that par for the course nowadays. Just read the title of this thread. You have people that will call these kinds of histrionics shameful and in the same breath call a United States congressman a member of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. How can you take any of this seriously anymore?

You are right - that is the problem. I think Ellison’s histrionics make for bad discussions and are shameful by the fruits of what they generate - you, on one hand, decry histrionics and yet, on another hand, think such histrionics should be part of a meaningful discussion.

I don’t.

And just because I say his remarks are “shameful” doesn’t somehow mean he isn’t entitled to them - just that no one should privilege such moonbattery as legitimate discussion.[/quote]

Fair enough.

Just to make a point, there are (many) people that believe Iraq was invaded based on willfully inaccurate information.

If that were so, and I’m not claiming I have evidence, then saying 9/11 was used, in bad faith, to justify government actions, wouldn’t seem to be much of a stretch.

The comparison to previous such actions may not be very palatable, but I think people should get beyond the “omg, they said hitler” response that seems so automatic these days.

Bush isn’t Hitler. Being compared to Hitler doesn’t mean that one has to have some type of similarity of views, or plans. History isn’t something that should be swept under the rug because it is uncomfortable.

If we can’t discuss it, or find out why the comparison is not appropriate, then we are doomed to lose sight of the lessons that history can provide us.

[quote]orion wrote:
Comparisons between Hitler and Bush are obviously stupid.

Hitler was an excellent public speaker, a decorated war veteran and never did drugs his whole life.

[/quote]

If memory serves,Adolf had a serious amphetamine habit…

[quote]orion wrote:
Comparisons between Hitler and Bush are obviously stupid.

Hitler was an excellent public speaker, a decorated war veteran and never did drugs his whole life.

[/quote]

Hitler did too do drugs. He was a meth-head. He did it everyday. I thought that was well publicized stuff.

From Wikipedea:
One of the earliest uses of amphetamine occurred during World War II when the German military dispensed it under the trade name Pervitin. [4] It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel. Chocolates dosed with methamphetamine were known as Fliegerschokolade (“flyer’s chocolate”) when given to pilots, or Panzerschokolade (“tanker’s chocolate”) when given to tank crews. From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler was given daily intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician, Theodor Morell,[5] as a treatment for depression and fatigue. It is possible that the Parkinsons-like symptoms which developed from 1940 onwards were related to his use of methamphetamine.[6]