Turquoise wrote:
GorillaKing798 wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
But... all the major dictators in history only were able to rise with the help or complicity of others. If Hitler hadn't had a movement strong enough behind him to stay in power and the Germans had been more wary of his hate (and willing to fight him), he would've been overthrown.
I guess what I'm getting at is that a corrupt politician can be dealt with much easier than a suicidal terrorist, because the politician still has a self-preservation instinct and depends on the obedience of others to do anything.
A terrorist can't raise one of the greatest armies ever seen and bring them into a World War, and corrupted politicians are extremely hard to stop, as they have so many people who buy into their lies.
Perhaps, I should rephrase what I mean then. Killing someone as evil and as powerful as Hitler was is more important than killing a terrorist, but... killing the average corrupt politician vs. a terrorist is excessive.
Hitler was not a corrupt politician, he made his intentions very clear to the German people, and then acted accordingly, therefore, this debate is pointless.
If anything, he could be more closely called a terrorist, for inspiring people to commit horrific acts of hatred, but the level of corruption in Nazi Germany was very low, that was one of Hitlers original goals, to weed out corruption in the German government.
Corrupted politicians would likely refer to officials in Ecuador, Colombia, and the Middle east who are paid by cartels and terrorists to "look the other way," or our old governor George Ryan who accepted bribes to license truck drivers who failed the driving test, and in most cases, corrupt politicians mean only a slight hazard to overall safety (more drugs, bad drivers), while the terrorists are actively trying to kill as many civilians as possible, in as brutal a method as possible. I think the choice is clear.
