It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The US: The New NAZI Stronghold?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   


Read this article, and tell me what you think.




posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades



Read this article, and tell me what you think.



like one other thread made recently it looks like godwin's law is taking root on this board again...

www.belowtopsecret.com...

nothing new....its a cycle.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Some very interesting parallels are drawn in the topic starter's link, however.

Other viewpoints on these parallels, and indeed on the subject itself, could make for a lively discussion. Unfortunately, the possiblility of anyone with personal memories of Hitler's Germany, is highly unlikely. Still, there are many able debaters & researchers within the membership of ATS.

My personal feeling is that Godwin's Law could not properly be invoked in this case, as the discussion hjasn't even started, also its original premise invites comparison between the Bush Administration and the flowering of Nazism in Germany.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I've been wondering this for a few years: Whatever happened to Checks and Balances? I haven't seen it going at all (at least none that I can see). It truly seems like most politicians are folding under Bush's (or someone else's whim, in favor of the puppet) whim.

[edit on 6-19-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   

The charismatic nature of HItler's position as Fuhrer - a quasi-messianic personalized form of rule that arose from the desire for national rebirth and unity in a country traumatized by national humiliation and paralyzed by political collapse - could of its essence not settle into 'normality' or routine, or sag into more conservative authoritarianism. Visionary goals of national redemption through European domination and radical purification were at the heart of the regime. These meant constant dynamism and self-perpetuating, intensifying radicalism. The longer the regime lasted, the more megalomaniac were its aims, the more boundless its destructiveness. Its gamble for world supremacy meant an alliance against extremely powerful allies. It was a gamble against the odds, in which the regime asked its own destruction and that of Germany itself. This was Nazism's essential irrationality. Hitler's charismatic leadership implied, therefore, not just an unprecedented capacity for destruction, but also an inbuilt tendency for self-destruction. In this sense the suicide of the German dictator on 30 April 1945 was not merely a welcome but also a logical end to the Third Reich.


Ian Kershaw, "Hitler and the Nazi Dictatorship," in Mary Fulbrook, ed., German History Since 1800 (London: Aarnold, 1997), p. 336

I suggest wisely, that from now on you know something about Nazism before ever considering someone is even a Nazi.

Even most Skin-heads with swastikas on their arms running around killing blacks and Jews and whoever they don't like, do not compare to the Nazis of Germany from 1933 to 1945.



posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
I've been wondering this for a few years: Whatever happened to Checks and Balances? I haven't seen it going at all (at least none that I can see). It truly seems like most politicians are folding under Bush's (or someone else's whim, in favor of the puppet) whim.

[edit on 6-19-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]


It seems you are blind and haven't been paying attention to anything. Do I really need to cite any reference to how wrong you are? Just open a news paper and read about some current events in Congress.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I doubt that anyone is seriously suggesting that the US is becoming a Nazi-type stronghold. Harley Sorensen, who published Herr Moellers' letter in the San Francisco Chronicle, came to the conclusion that some parallels are valid, while others are not.

If the topic in hand is regarded in the light of which parallels are valid or not, then I still think this could be an interesting dicussion. Participants could even choose a "parallel" to support or argue against. Surely America wouldn't suffer under a little scrutiny? I myself hesitate to "lead off", naturally, as I'm not a US citizem or even resident there. Perhaps the original poster would like to make a comment.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
This is cr@p. A definate stab at the USA. I'm not a Bush fan, quite the opposite in fact, but to paint him as Hitler is insane. First, he isn't smart enough, second, he can't even hide his own misdeeds. What about Clinton, all anyone ever wanted to know was who he was banging. Really clears the floor as to ANY policy.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I think that is some of the uneasiness about George Bush. It almost seems as if he has a vendetta against Muslims. People are wondering when he will stop this? I'm pretty certain though that his militaristic goals began and will finish within the Arab countries. So in that sense I can see similarities between Bush and Hitler, although Bush has a much more self-control and more realistic, not to say its a good thing.
Then you may ask, why is he against Arab countries? I think Israel is the answer. Israel started with Hitler and Israel's aims will finish with Bush. Most likely with Kerry as well, seeing as he actually comes from a Jewish background and many of his supporters, and fundraisers are Jewish.
So where does Bush connect with Israel? Many of the authors of PNAC are in Bush's administration including Dick Cheney. JINSA (Israel National Security) members are all throughout Bush's administration including Dick Cheney.
Anyway Arab countries are along the major oil reserves of the world. Particularly, look at the placement of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, they are all along the big oil reserves of the Capsian and Dead Sea. Many Afghanistan and Iraqi officials being installed by the US government are also Israeli supporters.
I could go further, but that should be enough to spur more debate.....



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I dislike Bush as the next person but cmon this is a bit overboard. Someone grabs a video frame of his hand forward and he is a Nazi. Unless he is doing the goose step as well I'm not buying it.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I will not purport my own politics. But you have hit on something. My question is, "how does this relate to the person in downtown Chicago, Detroit, Tampa, etc?"



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
If you are asking how this effects the common people of the US, then it benefits them. The only people who will care are the ones who believe in human decency across the board, irrespective of race, origin, etc.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If you are asking how this effects the common people of the US, then it benefits them. The only people who will care are the ones who believe in human decency across the board, irrespective of race, origin, etc.


Are you saying that Dubya is speaking for you?



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
May I address a little squeak of my own to indy?

I regarded the still from the video frame to be just that, & nothing more. If I were to read anything into it at all, I would feel it was either irony or humour on the poster's part, or as an attention-grabber for the topic. Nothing more than that.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:15 AM
link   
The man ain't no Hitler, he's trying to be, but he's lame.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Baset... it is kinda funny. Because man has so many great frame caps out there. So many goofy faces.


df1

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason

Originally posted by EmbryonicEssence
I've been wondering this for a few years: Whatever happened to Checks and Balances? I haven't seen it going at all (at least none that I can see). It truly seems like most politicians are folding under Bush's (or someone else's whim, in favor of the puppet) whim.[edit on 6-19-2004 by EmbryonicEssence]


It seems you are blind and haven't been paying attention to anything. Do I really need to cite any reference to how wrong you are? Just open a news paper and read about some current events in Congress.


Just a couple items off the top of my head which I am sure you can quickly correct.

The patriot act allows government to come into our homes without a warrant and otherwise violate our constitutional rights and the bush administration is pushing patriot act II to strip more of our rights.

The president says he can label anyone an enemy combatant and deny them all constitutional rights to trial and legal representations.

We have multiplicity of gulags around the world where people are secretly locked up and tortured.

Ashcroft says he can deny congress information on his whim with out citing any law or even executive privledge.

And congress says nothing in opposition save for the courageous Ron Paul, republican congressman from the 14th district of texas.

I would appreciate your citing references that show these things aren't true, as they sure sound evil and unamerican to me.
.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by df1]



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
Just a couple items off the top of my head which I am sure you can quickly correct.

The patriot act allows government to come into our homes without a warrant and otherwise violate our constitutional rights and the bush administration is pushing patriot act II to strip more of our rights.


Ok...have you ever bothered to ask yourself "which government"? Because the FBI is not going to be tapping your phones or break down your door unless you're really doing something that'd draw their attention.

The Patriot act merely removes, rather re-words certain US Code to allow local and state police to be better abled to notice and act upon a possible terrorist. Where-as before you had incidents such as WTC bombings where there was plenty of suspicions about what those terrorists were going to do, but the US Codes stated specific guidelines to just as far as you could go to get what you needed for an arrest.

I also see little problem in local and state police and sheriffs having more authority as those are far more controlled by the people in that region.


The president says he can label anyone an enemy combatant and deny them all constitutional rights to trial and legal representations.


Not really, again you need good and VERY good suspicion. If someone was just randomly picked up and never even left the country and lived in a small town far from many foriegners, the event would be immediately handled by the court system as the Judiciary still has over-site on these matters. For instance those 2 that they do have in some brigg in South Carolina ... the Courts are taking their time in dealing with what should be done about them because there is good evidence they were aiding or abetting.


We have multiplicity of gulags around the world where people are secretly locked up and tortured.


Well do we really? I mean you've not been to one, I've not been to one, no one has been to one??? Sure we might, but I don't think it's anything like the Soviet's Gulag (where the name comes from) or even as bad as your sentence there implies. And no one I know has disappeared to one of these Gulags.

I mean that's like suggesting that the US Government can get rid of political opponents by sending them to China with drugs in their pockets and letting the Chinese have them...it could happen but there's no evidence of it.


Ashcroft says he can deny congress information on his whim with out citing any law or even executive privledge.


That is true, it's called "Execuitive" priviledge which applies all over not just to the executive. Any government official can try to claim that, and unless the courts or executive enforces anything they'll get away with it.

There's also probably better reasons but that's a pretty good one in my book.


And congress says nothing in opposition save for the courageous Ron Paul, republican congressman from the 14th district of texas.


Well if they don't want to fuss about it they don't have to. You do realize the president can simply stop enforcing taxes, and if no one stops him, woo hoo for us. Of course...everyone would be trying to stop him lol!


I would appreciate your citing references that show these things aren't true, as they sure sound evil and unamerican to me.
.

[edit on 20-6-2004 by df1]


oooh my most is experience, I guess a good book would be "The American Democracy" by Thomas J. Patterson or "Understanding Public Policy" by Thomas R. Dye.

Both are pretty simple books that sum up just how conflicting and inefficient our federal government is.

Understanding public policy and how it is made will greatly help you understand why the government even does what it does. And how the parties really tend to work. Good stuff



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bastet
May I address a little squeak of my own to indy?

I regarded the still from the video frame to be just that, & nothing more. If I were to read anything into it at all, I would feel it was either irony or humour on the poster's part, or as an attention-grabber for the topic. Nothing more than that.


Actually it looks like he was reaching his hand out to point out a "horizon" notice how his hand is bent.

Hold out your hand to point towards a level surface off in the distance...it'll look just like his in that picture.



posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   


The Patriot act merely removes, rather re-words certain US Code to allow local and state police to be better abled to notice and act upon a possible terrorist. Where-as before you had incidents such as WTC bombings where there was plenty of suspicions about what those terrorists were going to do, but the US Codes stated specific guidelines to just as far as you could go to get what you needed for an arrest.


Actually, I believe the term now is reasonable cause to be a terrorist. Re-wording can mean a lot, especially in this case. Prior, the word was probable cause was needed, now it is reasonable cause. Probable means the appearance of truth. Reasonable just means logical, or suitable.

As well, I think denying freedom of information to private citizens is very suspect...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join