Posted on 12/04/2005 4:42:28 PM PST by RWR8189
In a series of recent speeches to the American people, President Bush has sought to equate the current terrorist threat with the 20th-century menace of communist totalitarianism. His case is that the terrorist challenge is global in scope, "evil" in nature, ruthless toward its foes, and eager to control every aspect of life and thought. Thus, he argues, the battle against terrorism demands nothing "less than a complete victory."
In making this case, the president has repeatedly invoked the adjective "Islamic" when referring to terrorism and he has compared the "murderous ideology of Islamic radicalism" to the ideology of communism.
Is the president historically right in his diagnosis of the allegedly similar dangers posed by Islamic extremism and by totalitarian communism? The differences between the two may be more telling than their similarities. And is he wise to be expounding such a thesis?
By asserting that Islamic extremism, "like the ideology of communism . . . is the great challenge of our new century," Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden's stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao. And that suggests, in turn, that the fugitive Saudi dissident hiding in some cave (or perhaps even deceased) has been articulating a doctrine of universal significance. Underlying the president's analogy is the proposition that bin Laden's "jihad" has the potential for dominating the minds and hearts of hundreds of millions of people across national and even religious boundaries. That is quite a compliment to bin Laden, but it isn't justified. The "Islamic" jihad is, at best, a fragmented and limited movement that hardly resonates in most of the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Both seek the total enslavement of the world's poopulation.
"...Bush is implicitly elevating Osama bin Laden's stature and historic significance to the level of figures such as Lenin, Stalin or Mao..."
Hitler was regarded as an insignificant kook by many, but managed to cause the death of millions and untold misery.
Bush is right. Brzezinski is wrong.
Scope [and millenarian character] of claims, scope of operation, difficulty in uprooting - all are similar. Bush is more right than he knows. And the poopulation should restrain its pooping, or the greenpissers would crap on it.
I think the Communism comparison works, especially because anti-American leftists (aka Communists) are siding with the Islamicists.
And of course, Saddam was just a thug until he manged to get his hands on the reins of power. How many millions of Iranian, Kuwati and Iraqi deaths was he responsible for?
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"
Some "stirred up Muslims" indeed! ZB's jealous of losing his place in history, whatever that is...
Brzezinski is certainly wrong -- once again. He did not appreciate the importance of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, either as it impacted the Soviet Union or world wide Islamism. The Soviet Union is dead, but the Islamists are alive and kicking from Morocco to the Philippines, and from South America through the United States and Canada on to Europe.
Brezinski, was he the architect of the first Afghan jihad with Jimmy Carter?
Still fighting the Cold War...
ZB talks as though Lenin, Stalin and Mao did something good and admirable.
You can't be elevated to the level of Lenin, Stalin or Mao. You can only be compared to their same low station in the history of humanity.
Yes, they have something in common: Brzezinski supports both of them.
"ZB's jealous of losing his place in history, whatever that is.."
The dead mantra of "Mutually Assured Destruction" died with Reagan's peace through strength military build-up....
Wonder who all has ZB on their payroll these days....
He is old and senile and needs to be put out to pasture and should have been long ago.
Here's where he's wrong. There are far more Muslims in the world than were ever under Soviet Influence. And virtually all of these muslims will not speak up against Islamic jihad, and by their very silence express their acceptance.
Communism never made an inroad where Democracy had a strong foot hold other than by force. However the Jihaddists are everywhere Muslims have anything close to a majority.
No matter how much you whistle past the graveyard, you can not dismiss the similarity.
Hehe. Nice post. Thank you.
I copied a post on another forum long ago. The author is unknown, but had good insight:
There are 2 kinds of Socialists:
1 National Socialists.
These guys like to take over and tell you what to do.
They control industry and supply by co-opting the business owners, so giving the impression of independent ownership.
They hate anyone who doesn't share their beliefs, especially the Jews who they like to exterminate.
They are strongly nationalistic and wish to take over the world to make everyone like them.
Examples: Nazis and Islamists
2 International Socialists
These guys like to take over and tell you what to do.
They control industry and supply by killing the business owners, so destroying any impression of independent ownership.
They hate anyone who doesn't share their beliefs, especially the Jews who they like to exterminate.
They are strongly international and wish to take over the world to link up with everyone like them in other countries.
Examples: Communists and ..er... Socialists
The bottom line is as people have said, the result is the same: you are screwed.
Quote: Communists are Socialists in a hurry.
What do Brzezinski and Stansfield Turner have in common?
Jimmy Carter!
Says it all! National Security Advisor and CIA Slub.
1. Most (if not all) of the Islamic world is mobilized for waging Jihad at the grass roots level should give us pause.
2. Islamists have signicantly infiltrated Western society and are increasing their base daily through immigration and conversions.
3. We have a fifth column (the MSN + Leftists) working to undermine our ability to mobilize against this threat. As a result, most of our populace is deaf, dumb, and blind to the true nature of this threat.
4. Al Qaeda is actively seeking nuclear weapons. At least one Muslim country has them. Others (Iran) are nearly there.
When taken together, the above four facts actually make them every bit as dangerous as either communism or fascism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.