Prompted by AOG's Q and final comment below..

[R1Geezer]

Is there any comparison between those who refused to entertain the idea that the Nazi's where a threat in the 30's with todays Islam apologists? Churchill was originally labelled an alarmist nutter by the liberal Elite but even they eventually woke up, too late, they needed saving by those they dispised. Is history repeating itself with the current creeping Islamasization? Will the Islamophiles wake up when their cozy little lives are threatened with serious change?

[jno]

you're quite right that some hardliners would like to Islamise the country, Lonnie. My argument is simply this: they haven't a chance. The Nazis actually had control of Germany. Muslims make up what, about 4% of the UK population - and that's all of them, almost all of them moderate and no more interested in taking over the country than Roman Catholics are.

And yes, the Roman Catholics once dreamed of taking over the country. But they too were so outnumbered they never had a chance. They are allowed to worship their own God in peace. Muslims should be too.

[Kromovaracun]

If memory serves Chamberlain was elected on a policy of rearmament.

If memory serves, Chamberlain wasn't elected.

[Kromovaracun]

Of course Bush isn't Churchill, he's following Hitlers policies.

Yeh, because Bush is totally big-state, has enshrined racial discrimination into U.S. law, has explicitly sanctioned genocide, or has murdered or supressed his opposition.

Honestly, I really can't see the comparison people always make between Bush and Hitler. It just sounds silly.

[jno]

first US president to defend torture, I think, Kromovaracun. But not genocidal.

[Kromovaracun]

If he's the first U.S president to condone torture I'll eat my hat. And it's a nice hat, too. I wouldn't want to eat it. But I will if he is. Which is quite a risk, really, because it's a nice hat and probably wouldn't taste all that...

Sorry. Lost my train of thought.

Anyway - just a few seconds on Wiki reminds me of the following:

FDR blatantly turned a blind eye to racial lynchings (not quite torture in name, but some pretty gruesome stuff went on) in the U.S.A itself. LBJ and Nixon also ignored the torture in 'Nam. Perhaps less direct but little de facto difference with what you're talking about.

Please note I'm not necessarily condemning any of the above Presidents (I don't actually think they could've done that much more than Bush can now) - I'm just placing some examples.

[Eric-Cartman]

I urge you to do some research into the "Patriot Act" Kromovaracun, (If you haven't already) See how much of the American Constitution that the Bush era has removed.

All of it based on the fight against "Terrorism", many of his policies where in place before 9/11 but he needed fear to get them ratified by congress.

And as for the racial issue, just look at the aftermath of Katrina. The US hasn't bothered to channel funds to the area because it has a black majority.

Suppressing his opposition was done by his brother during the first election, remove the black vote in Florida via the Diebold voting system and he was on to a winner.

When you've finished all that, look into the life of Prescott Bush.

[Kromovaracun]

I urge you to do some research into the "Patriot Act" Kromovaracun, (If you haven't already) See how much of the American Constitution that the Bush era has removed

Disgraceful as it is, technically, the Patriot Act doesn't violate the letter of the Constitution - there's nothing in it than says the govt can't breach your records. Otherwise it would've been struck down. And there's still a freely elected congress that can overturn it. That certainly didn't apply in Nazi Germany.

All of it based on the fight against "Terrorism", many of his policies where in place before 9/11

Like what? The Patriot Act and Homeland Security were both done after 9/11.

And as for the racial issue, just look at the aftermath of Katrina. The US hasn't bothered to channel funds to the area because it has a black majority.

The problem with Katrina wasn't funding - it was stupidity. That's a long, long way off from a comparison with Hitler you were trying to strike.

[123everton]

Stand corrected on the election thing, but Chamberlain did rearm the country, much to the chagrin of the Labour opposition at the time who if memory serves said "if elected we will disband the Army, disband the Navy and disband the R.A.F. ant then we will turn and say to the world go ahead and do your worst" which I think was the abour party conference of 1937 (or 36) they repeated a similar sentiment in the House of Commons to which Chamberlain retorted "you want to offer defiance without defence, I say you cannot offer defiance unless you have a good defence!" it's an awful long time since I read a biography on Chamberlain (I kinda like pariahs) I've slept since then.

[keyplus90]

I don't think you can compare Muslims with Nazis due to following reasons,

1 - Nazis killed people because of their religion, Muslims do not do that.

2 - As many said that Nazis were in power and had a country well equipped whereas Muslims (ones we are worried about) have no resources and even the incidents which are associated with them still have some grey areas.

3 - Most important - Muslims do not have any intention what so ever to take over this or any country. But on the other hand Muslims are not willing to integrate into the society with their eyes closed and many take that as threat to Western values. But I have always argued that Binge drinking, teenage pregnancies, broken families are not Western values although few people may take them as one. Because few Muslims may have accepted these things as sign of progress or status but many still oppose and that is not going to change. I believe many people are more concerned with this.

But if you just look at this then it is not taking over but staying put.

[Haggisdj]

I really am having a hard time trying to fathom out keyplus90
's post above???

[anotheoldgit]

Agree with Hagisdj, this is the only part of keyplus90's post I can fathom out.

1 - Nazis killed people because of their religion, Muslims do not do that.

Yet even this statement is incorrect, just ask the Jews.

They will even kill each other, Sunni - Shia.

[123everton]

It's an over simplification to view the troubles in Israel as a religious one, there is a difference between political Islam (fundamentalism) and religious Islamic expression.
Political religionists are usually quite unforgiving (ironically) the task for us, the global community and all our leaders is to identify the politicalists (of all creeds, check Hindu nationalists in India) and neutralise them in order to build up secular internationalism with free religious (and non-religious) expression for all.