Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on August 31, 2006, 02:51:42 PM
-
The State of Israel should come to an end under zionist rule--no that doesn't mean wiped off the map :)
Jewish protest of Zionism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1226502889810850099&q
Rabbi Weiss on Fox News
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4482629856613822139&q
Rabbi Weiss on Fox News
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5897943942128893828&q
Hahahaha... listen to this butthead that confronts real Jews.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4482629856613822139&q
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
Roles of Zionism in the Holocaust
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm
Zionist War Criminals:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/resources/onlinebooks/holocaust%20victims%20accuse.pdf
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=86884.0
http://www.inminds.co.uk/ra/rabbi-goldstein-lecture.rm In his lecture, rabbi Goldstein said,
“…The Muslims people basically got involved in the fight against zionism when it started effecting them on a political bases which is 1917 for the Palestinians or afterwards for some of the other Arab countries, We [religious Jews] were in this fight from the 1890 roughly… As soon as it was founded [zionism], it was condemned - Jews came out and said this is atheistic, this is idol worship…”
-
;D
-
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a212/corndog7/hahahitler.jpg)
-
John Matrix is Stupid ;D
-
sorry i just get a kick out of that pic ;D
-
Who else is amused
"George Walker, GW's great-grandfather, set up the takeover of the Hamburg-America Line, a cover for I.G. Farben's Nazi espionage unit in the United States. In Germany, I.G. Farben was most famous for putting the gas in gas chambers; it was the producer of Zyklon B and other gasses used on victims of the Holocaust. The Bush family was not unaware of the nature of their investment partners. They hired Allen Dulles, the future head of the CIA, to hide the funds they were making from Nazi investments and the funds they were sending to Nazi Germany, rather than divest. It was only in 1942, when the government seized Union Banking Company assets under the Trading With The Enemy Act, that George Walker and Prescott Bush stopped pumping money into Hitler's regime."
"Prescott Bush, the president's grandfather. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush. (2) On the 20th of October, the government commenced action against the company under the trading with the enemy act. (3) After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal. (4) In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate, with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past."
-
Did no one listen to the lecture? ::) You're all just a bunch of Fox News/CNN/MSNBC experts who know it all right?
-
Those were fabulous links Berserker!
I listened to the Rabbi's lecture and explored throughout the 2nd website. Very enlightening.
-
Those were fabulous links Berserker!
I listened to the Rabbi's lecture and explored throughout the 2nd website. Very enlightening.
You put up a picture of Bush with Hitler suggesting that they're as bad?
What the fcuk are you on about?
Hitler was one of the biggest criminals in the history of mankind.
George Bush, for all his incompetence, isn't responsible for genocide, for systematic elimination of ethnicities or all the other horrible crimes that are Hitler's "legacy".
Bush may or may not be a bad politician. But he's a politician in a civilized, democratic society. The beauty is that you're allowed to voice this actually totally baseless attack on Bush, because we live in a democracy.
Thing is, you come across as a zealot. Someone without any grasp of moderation. Everything is either black or white, good or bad with you.
What little credibility you have left, is rapidly diminishing due to this.
YIP
Zack
-
OWNAGE!
-
You put up a picture of Bush with Hitler suggesting that they're as bad?
What the fcuk are you on about?
Hitler was one of the biggest criminals in the history of mankind.
George Bush, for all his incompetence, isn't responsible for genocide, for systematic elimination of ethnicities or all the other horrible crimes that are Hitler's "legacy".
Bush may or may not be a bad politician. But he's a politician in a civilized, democratic society. The beauty is that you're allowed to voice this actually totally baseless attack on Bush, because we live in a democracy.
Thing is, you come across as a zealot. Someone without any grasp of moderation. Everything is either black or white, good or bad with you.
What little credibility you have left, is rapidly diminishing due to this.
YIP
Zack
Zack,
I respect your right to your opinion.
I believe the full laundry list of Bush's crimes have not yet been released to the public at large.
Yes, he's stupid and a bad politician yada, yada, yada ...but that's no excuse for the attrocities he's committed and is continuing to commit. We've had 50 years to flesh out Hitler's crimes. Hopefully it won't take as long for GWB's.
-
Haha, admit defeat you slag!
Hedgehog... OWNED your ass!
-
Zack,
I respect your right to your opinion.
I believe the full laundry list of Bush's crimes have not yet been released to the public at large.
Yes, he's stupid and a bad politician yada, yada, yada ...but that's no excuse for the attrocities he's committed and is continuing to commit. We've had 50 years to flesh out Hitler's crimes. Hopefully it won't take as long for GWB's.
I believe that most of Bush's mistakes and faults, crimes, will eventually come out.
I, from day one, thought that the prison at Guantanamo was a direct violation of war conduct, and that it along with other military prisons were examples of torture on prisoners of war. People have been held without a trial for over four years, tortured.
I hold Bush responsible for this, of course.
But it's not even in the same ballpark as what Hitler was responsible for.
My question for you is this:
What crimes have Bush committed that would equal the genocide/elimination of millions Jews, thousands of Gypsies, homosexuals and retards? The bombing of England, slaughter of Poles, Russians et al?
What crimes have Bush committed that would equal the above?
YIP
Zack
-
I believe that most of Bush's mistakes and faults, crimes, will eventually come out.
I, from day one, thought that the prison at Guantanamo was a direct violation of war conduct, and that it along with other military prisons were examples of torture on prisoners of war. People have been held without a trial for over four years, tortured.
I hold Bush responsible for this, of course.
But it's not even in the same ballpark as what Hitler was responsible for.
My question for you is this:
What crimes have Bush committed that would equal the genocide/elimination of millions Jews, thousands of Gypsies, homosexuals and retards? The bombing of England, slaughter of Poles, Russians et al?
What crimes have Bush committed that would equal the above?
YIP
Zack
Zack,
There are a lot of things that I won't even begin to post, because 1 - I don't think people are ready for it, ...and 2 - I don't have the proof at my fingertips, and have no intention on going to the trouble to pull it all together because of reason #1, and also because I really can't be bothered. But it is as I stated, as well as you have stated. His crimes WILL eventually come out, and we will clearly see that not all of it can be chalked up to stupidity
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
February 27, 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.
He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptam t and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
-
Zack,
There are a lot of things that I won't even begin to post, because 1 - I don't think people are ready for it, ...and 2 - I don't have the proof at my fingertips, and have no intention on going to the trouble to pull it all together because of reason #1, and also because I really can't be bothered. But it is as I stated, as well as you have stated. His crimes WILL eventually come out, and we will clearly see that not all of it can be chalked up to stupidity
You're comparing Bush to Hitler.
I'm not gonna ask for you to back up your claims this time, no need to cite sources or post articles.
I simply want to know what kind of crimes that Bush has committed that makes him equal to Hitler?
Give a few examples.
YIP
Zack
-
You're comparing Bush to Hitler.
I'm not gonna ask for you to back up your claims this time, no need to cite sources or post articles.
I simply want to know what kind of crimes that Bush has committed that makes him equal to Hitler?
Give a few examples.
YIP
Zack
Actually Zack, I didn't say they were equal, ...however the $#|T we've seen so far from Bush, ...we've already seen before. There is also more that has yet to reach the light of day. I say sit back and wait for it.
-
Those were fabulous links Berserker!
I listened to the Rabbi's lecture and explored throughout the 2nd website. Very enlightening.
Come on Judi. Hitler systematically and ruthlessly murdered 6 million men, woman and children. Plus the other hundred million or so who died during WWII. It didn't take 50 years to flesh out his crimes. You can't draw a comparison between Hitler and Bush.
-
Come on Judi. Hitler systematically and ruthlessly murdered 6 million men, woman and children. Plus the other hundred million or so who died during WWII. It didn't take 50 years to flesh out his crimes. You can't draw a comparison between Hitler and Bush.
I believe there is ample evidence to draw major similarities between the two.
-
Actually Zack, I didn't say they were equal, ...however the $#|T we've seen so far from Bush, ...we've already seen before. There is also more that has yet to reach the light of day. I say sit back and wait for it.
You posted a pic, without any ironic disclaimer or shit like that, with pics of Hitler and Bush.
It read: "Same shit Different assholes"
That looks very much like stating like they're equal.
If you dislike Bush, that's fine. But don't compare his "evil" or crimes to that of Adolf Hitler.
It's not in the same ballpark, not the same league, not whatever.
Besides, if we're comparing Hitler and Bush as far as skills goes, Hitler was way above Bush.
Hitler was a self-made man, who was able to build a cult, extremely skillful at rhetorics. And a crazyman.
Bush is very average, and his foundation of power was made for him by his family, and the men surrounding him.
What characteristics do you find similar between Hitler and Bush, Jag?
YIP
Zack
-
You posted a pic, without any ironic disclaimer or shit like that, with pics of Hitler and Bush.
It read: "Same shit Different assholes"
That looks very much like stating like they're equal.
If you dislike Bush, that's fine. But don't compare his "evil" or crimes to that of Adolf Hitler.
It's not in the same ballpark, not the same league, not whatever.
Besides, if we're comparing Hitler and Bush as far as skills goes, Hitler was way above Bush.
Hitler was a self-made man, who was able to build a cult, extremely skillful at rhetorics. And a crazyman.
Bush is very average, and his foundation of power was made for him by his family, and the men surrounding him.
What characteristics do you find similar between Hitler and Bush, Jag?
YIP
Zack
There rise to power, and their rhetoric & actions afterward.
Who knows, ...maybe we'll get lucky and Bush will opt for the same fate as Hitler. :-\
-
There rise to power, and their rhetoric & actions afterward.
Who knows, ...maybe we'll get lucky and Bush will opt for the same fate as Hitler. :-\
Hitler maneuvered his way into the role as Führer, and turned Germany into a dictature.
Bush has won elections. He has not turned USA into a dictature.
Hitler would blame the failing economy and crime problems on Jews.
Bush, as much as he puts "You-Sama Bin Laiden" and "Sae-Damme" to blame for terrorism, isn't blaming ethnicities, or religious groups for budget deficits, or domestic situations.
To suggest that it would be a good idea if Bush committed suicide... You need to check your democratic values IMO.
YIP
Zack
-
Hitler maneuvered his way into the role as Führer, and turned Germany into a dictature.
Bush has won elections. He has not turned USA into a dictature.
Hitler would blame the failing economy and crime problems on Jews.
Bush, as much as he puts "You-Sama Bin Laiden" and "Sae-Damme" to blame for terrorism, isn't blaming ethnicities, or religious groups for budget deficits, or domestic situations.
To suggest that it would be a good idea if Bush committed suicide... You need to check your democratic values IMO.
YIP
Zack
I'm fine with my 'democratic values'. I think they're certainly better than so-called Christian evangelists call for CIA assasination of world leaders.
-
I'm fine with my 'democratic values'. I think they're certainly better than so-called Christian evangelists call for CIA assasination of world leaders.
I don't care about extremists spewing hate.
I am interested in knowing why you think it would be a good idea that the Prez of USA would committ suicide.
How do you get to that conclusion?
YIP
Zack
-
damnit no nice pics? Just a monster post by judi. I feel ripped off
-
I don't care about extremists spewing hate.
I am interested in knowing why you think it would be a good idea that the Prez of USA would committ suicide.
How do you get to that conclusion?
YIP
Zack
I think if & when the full laundry list of his crimes comes out, it's gonna be a nightmare for his successors to bring him to full justice. For the same reason Queen Elizabeth I had a hard time dispatching the Scottish queen, it's a nasty precedent one sets by incarcerating a US president let alone charging him with a capital offense.
-
You posted a pic, without any ironic disclaimer or shit like that, with pics of Hitler and Bush.
It read: "Same shit Different assholes"
That looks very much like stating like they're equal.
If you dislike Bush, that's fine. But don't compare his "evil" or crimes to that of Adolf Hitler.
It's not in the same ballpark, not the same league, not whatever.
Anyone who has family that lived through WWII under Hitler, knows that what you say is very true. People simply have no idea.
-
I think if & when the full laundry list of his crimes comes out, it's gonna be a nightmare for his successors to bring him to full justice. For the same reason Queen Elizabeth I had a hard time dispatching the Scottish queen, it's a nasty precedent one sets by incarcerating a US president let alone charging him with a capital offense.
Ok.
Lets say he's guilty of a lot of crimes.
A LOT.
Remember,
Adolf Hitler - responsible for WWII and slaughtering of millions on ethnic grounds.
How could Bush be equal (or same) to Hitler?
YIP
Zack
-
Anyone who has family that lived through the WWII under Hitler, knows that what you say is very true. People simply have no idea.
A man I work with was born in France in 1939. He was a young boy during the occupation of France. His dad was was a dentist. They were Jewish. One day some SS men came and got his dad. He never saw his father again. I think he knows the distinction between George Bush and Adolf Hitler pretty well.
-
A big problem when comparisons to Hitler, and shit like that is written or stated somewhere, is that whatever fair critisism of Bush that is brought up, could be associated with the baseless propaganda that a Hitler-Bush comparison is.
Nobody with a serious interest in democracy would ever want to be associated with crap like comparing the evils of Hitler to those of Bush.
So essentially, the zealots who brings up Hitler and other butchers in our history when they try to 'debate', are effectively helping the Bush side of the argument.
YIP
Zack
-
A big problem when comparisons to Hitler, and shit like that is written or stated somewhere, is that whatever fair critisism of Bush that is brought up, could be associated with the baseless propaganda that a Hitler-Bush comparison is.
Nobody with a serious interest in democracy would ever want to be associated with crap like comparing the evils of Hitler to those of Bush.
So essentially, the zealots who brings up Hitler and other butchers in our history when they try to 'debate', are effectively helping the Bush side of the argument.
YIP
Zack
When you make comparisons like that your credibility has to come into question. Its like comparing Jeffrey Dahmer to someone who got a parking ticket.
-
The Fox News interview above is very interesting... It backs up that the Iranian president did not say he wanted Israel wiped off the map and translations of what he said do indeed point to that he actually said he wants to see zionism removed from the pages of history. The people who innitially translated his words admit to being rushed and admit to it being a hard translation.
-
...George Bush, for all his incompetence, isn't responsible for genocide, for systematic elimination of ethnicities or all the other horrible crimes that are Hitler's "legacy".
Bush may or may not be a bad politician. But he's a politician in a civilized, democratic society. The beauty is that you're allowed to voice this actually totally baseless attack on Bush, because we live in a democracy.
Thing is, you come across as a zealot. Someone without any grasp of moderation. Everything is either black or white, good or bad with you.
What little credibility you have left, is rapidly diminishing due to this.
YIP
Zack
I don't care for histrionical comparisons of Bush and Hitler, but you said that Bush isn't responsible for a genocide or ethnic cleansing and that such an attack is baseless.
I think you are wrong on that point and here's why: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq that killed over 70,000 Iraqis and permitted the Shia majority to engage in ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority. But for Bush's ordered attack on Iraq, there would be no ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Those are facts.
And now for my opinion.
The invasion was illegal under international law.
If an invasion/use of force is not legal, then it is illegal. Why is that important? B/c it is the difference between self-defense and murder.
-
While many people may have died like u mentioned...nobody told me or anybody else to round up and kill civilians...i was there. Bush is in no way shape or form in the same universe as Hitler. He may be guilty of incompetence for listening to Rummy and Cheney. Also please rememer, as many of u libs post on a daily basis, that Bush and company thought we'd be greeted as liberators. So which is it, Bush as a bringer of (failed) democracy or Bush as Reinhart Hydreich, u people can't have it both ways.
-
I don't care for histrionical comparisons of Bush and Hitler, but you said that Bush isn't responsible for a genocide or ethnic cleansing and that such an attack is baseless.
I think you are wrong on that point and here's why: Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq that killed over 70,000 Iraqis and permitted the Shia majority to engage in ethnic cleansing of the Sunni minority. But for Bush's ordered attack on Iraq, there would be no ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Those are facts.
And now for my opinion.
The invasion was illegal under international law.
If an invasion/use of force is not legal, then it is illegal. Why is that important? B/c it is the difference between self-defense and murder.
Correct: The invasion was illegal under international law. I have never supported the Iraq war. The UN inspectors were searching Iraq, and effective at it.
The attack on Iraq was clearly illegal, and Bush is responsible for it.
But Bush didn't order any genocide.
My critisism of jaguar was that she equalled Bush to Hitler, which is ridiculous.
At best.
-
Correct: The invasion was illegal under international law. I have never supported the Iraq war. The UN inspectors were searching Iraq, and effective at it.
The attack on Iraq was clearly illegal, and Bush is responsible for it.
But Bush didn't order any genocide.
My critisism of jaguar was that she equalled Bush to Hitler, which is ridiculous.
At best.
As long as you're not looking at the Bush Dynasty, then you'll have some debates.
-
Click to enlarge:
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21338_prescott41.jpg) (http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21338_prescott41.jpg)
-
“Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951” - Federal Documents
By John Buchanan and Stacey Michael
from The New Hampshire Gazette Vol. 248, No. 3, November 7, 2003
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.
Bush's partners in the secret web of Thyssen-controlled ventures included former New York Governor W. Averell Harriman and his younger brother, E. Roland Harriman. Their quarter-century of Nazi financial transactions, from 1924-1951, were conducted by the New York private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment.
Although the additional seizures under the Trading with the Enemy Act did not take place until after the war, documents from The National Archives and Library of Congress confirm that Bush and his partners continued their Nazi dealings unabated. These activities included a financial relationship with the German city of Hanover and several industrial concerns. They went undetected by investigators until after World War Two.
At the same time Bush and the Harrimans were profiting from their Nazi partnerships, W. Averell Harriman was serving as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal emissary to the United Kingdom during the toughest years of the war. On October 28, 1942, the same day two key Bush-Harriman-run businesses were being seized by the U.S. government, Harriman was meeting in London with Field Marshall Smuts to discuss the war effort.
Denial and Deceit
While Harriman was concealing his Nazi relationships from his government colleagues, Cornelius Livense, the top executive of the interlocking German concerns held under the corporate umbrella of Union Banking Corporation (UBC), repeatedly tried to mislead investigators, and was sometimes supported in his subterfuge by Brown Brothers Harriman.
All of the assets of UBC and its related businesses belonged to Thyssen-controlled enterprises, including his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart in Rotterdam, the documents state.
Nevertheless, Livense, president of UBC, claimed to have no knowledge of such a relationship. "Strangely enough, (Livense) claims he does not know the actual ownership of the company," states a government report.
H.D Pennington, manager of Brown Brothers Harriman and a director of UBC "for many years," also lied to investigators about the secret and well-concealed relationship with Thyssen's Dutch bank, according to the documents.
Investigators later reported that the company was "wholly owned" by Thyssen's Dutch bank.
Despite such ongoing subterfuge, U.S. investigators were able to show that "a careful examination of UBC's general ledger, cash books and journals from 1919 until the present date clearly establish that the principal and practically only source of funds has been Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart."
In yet another attempt to mislead investigators, Livense said that $240,000 in banknotes in a safe deposit box at Underwriters Trust Co. in New York had been given to him by another UBC-Thyssen associate, H.J. Kouwenhoven, managing director of Thyssen's Dutch bank and a director of the August Thyssen Bank in Berlin. August Thyssen was Fritz's father.
The government report shows that Livense first neglected to report the $240,000, then claimed that it had been given to him as a gift by Kouwenhoven. However, by the time Livense filed a financial disclosure with U.S. officials, he changed his story again and reported the sum as a debt rather than a cash holding.
In yet another attempt to deceive the governments of both the U.S. and Canada, Livense and his partners misreported the facts about the sale of a Canadian Nazi front enterprise, La Cooperative Catholique des Consommateurs de Combustible, which imported German coal into Canada via the web of Thyssen-controlled U.S. businesses.
"The Canadian authorities, however, were not taken in by this maneuver," a U.S. government report states. The coal company was later seized by Canadian authorities.
After the war, a total of 18 additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act, including several that showed the continuation of a relationship with the Thyssen family after the initial 1942 seizures.
The records also show that Bush and the Harrimans conducted business after the war with related concerns doing business in or moving assets into Switzerland, Panama, Argentina and Brazil - all critical outposts for the flight of Nazi capital after Germany's surrender in 1945. Fritz Thyssen died in Argentina in 1951.
One of the final seizures, in October 1950, concerned the U.S. assets of a Nazi baroness named Theresia Maria Ida Beneditka Huberta Stanislava Martina von Schwarzenberg, who also used two shorter aliases. Brown Brothers Harriman, where Prescott Bush and the Harrimans were partners, attempted to convince government investigators that the baroness had been a victim of Nazi persecution and therefore should be allowed to maintain her assets.
"It appears, rather, that the subject was a member of the Nazi party," government investigators concluded.
At the same time the last Brown Brothers Harriman client assets were seized, Prescott Bush announced his Senate campaign that led to his election in 1952.
Investigation Investigated?
In 1943, six months after the seizure of UBC and its related companies, a government investigator noted in a Treasury Department memo dated April 8, 1943 that the FBI had inquired about the status of any investigation into Bush and the Harrimans.
"I gave 'a memorandum' which did not say anything about the American officers of subject," the investigator wrote. "(Another investigator) wanted to know whether any specific action had been taken by us with respect to them."
No further action beyond the initial seizures was ever taken, and the newly-confirmed records went unseen by the American people for six decades.
What Does It All Mean?
So why are the documents relevant today?
"The story of Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman is an introduction to the real history of our country," says L.A. art book publisher and historian Edward Boswell. "It exposes the money-making motives behind our foreign policies, dating back a full century. The ability of Prescott Bush and the Harrimans to bury their checkered pasts also reveals a collusion between Wall Street and the media that exists to this day."
Sheldon Drobny, a Chicago entrepreneur and philanthropist who will soon launch a liberal talk radio network, says the importance of the new documents is that they prove a long pattern of Bush family war profiteering that continues today via George H.W. Bush's intimate relationship with the Saudi royal family and the bin Ladens, conducted via the super-secret Carlyle Group, whose senior advisers include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III.
In the post-9/11 world, Drobny finds the Bush-Saudi connection deeply troubling. "Trading with the enemy is trading with the enemy," he says. "That's the relevance of the documents and what they show."
Lawrence Lader, an abortion rights activist and the author of more than 40 books, says "the relevance lies with the fact that the sitting President of the United States would lead the nation to war based on lies and against the wishes of the rest of the world." Lader and others draw comparisons between President Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of Poland in 1939 - the event that sparked World War Two.
However, others see an even larger significance.
"The discovery of the Bush-Nazi documents raises new questions about the role of Prescott Bush and his influential business partners in the secret emigration of Nazi war criminals, which allowed them to escape justice in Germany," says Bob Fertik, co-founder of Democrats.com and an amateur 'Nazi hunter.' "It also raises questions about the importance of Nazi recruits to the CIA in its early years, in what was called Operation Paperclip, and Prescott Bush's role in that dark operation."
Fertik and others, including former Justice Department Nazi war crimes prosecutor John Loftus, a Constitutional attorney in Miami, and a former Veterans Administration official, believe Prescott Bush and the Harrimans should have been tried for treason.
What Next?
Now, say Fertik and Loftus, there should be a Congressional investigation into the Bush family's Nazi past and its concealment from the American people for 60 years.
"The American people have a right to know, in detail, about this hidden chapter of our history," says Loftus, author of The Secret War Against the Jews. "That's the only way we can understand it and deal with it."
For his part, Fertik is pessimistic that even a Congressional investigation can thwart the war profiteering of the present Bush White House. "It's impossible to stop it," he says, "when the worst war profiteers are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who operate in secrecy behind the vast powers of the White House."
-
Berserker,
That stuff about the Bush family and its enrichment from Nazi investments is true. Disturbing, but true. When elites smell new markets for exploitation, all moral considerations pretty much go away.
What also bothers me is this: President Reagan was shot by a family friend of the Bushes. The day before the assassination attempt, Neil Bush had dinner with the shooter's brother.
I bring this up just b/c I saw The Manchurian Candidate w/ Sinatra over the weekend and it brought the assassination attempt to mind.
Then in a related note, we have the Bin Ladens--a close business relation with the Bush family. Coincidentally, the son of that family orchestrates the 9/11 attacks.
I find these coincidences pretty entertaining in a sinister way but then again, I have an active imagination.
-
While many people may have died like u mentioned...nobody told me or anybody else to round up and kill civilians...i was there. Bush is in no way shape or form in the same universe as Hitler. He may be guilty of incompetence for listening to Rummy and Cheney. Also please rememer, as many of u libs post on a daily basis, that Bush and company thought we'd be greeted as liberators. So which is it, Bush as a bringer of (failed) democracy or Bush as Reinhart Hydreich, u people can't have it both ways.
Like I said, I think comparing Bush to Hitler is histrionical and not apt. But to deny that Bush has not caused the wheels of genocide and destruction to roll on a grand scale is to ignore the facts.
-
Correct: The invasion was illegal under international law. I have never supported the Iraq war. The UN inspectors were searching Iraq, and effective at it.
The attack on Iraq was clearly illegal, and Bush is responsible for it.
But Bush didn't order any genocide.
My critisism of jaguar was that she equalled Bush to Hitler, which is ridiculous.
At best.
I agree with your note on the comparison. But it is undeniable that Bush set the process in motion for genocide (uncorked the Shia cleansing of the Sunni) and he did cause death and destruction on a massive scale with the Iraqi invasion.
-
I agree with your note on the comparison. But it is undeniable that Bush set the process in motion for genocide (uncorked the Shia cleansing of the Sunni) and he did cause death and destruction on a massive scale with the Iraqi invasion.
You are right on all this.
Still, it hurts the legit anti-war activism when nutjobs makes crazy claims, like that comparison of Hitler and Bush.
Which is essentially my point.
Instead of discussing the real issue (illegal invasion despite the weapon inspectors doing their job), we will get a pseudo-debate, that the Bush Administration have no problem handling.
Because no sane person will believe that Bush is comparable to Hitler, so if the critisism gets associated with that rhetoric, the public will have no choice but to go with Bush.
I'm not saying that jag is a nutjob, but on this instance, she definitately argued like one.
-
You are right on all this.
Still, it hurts the legit anti-war activism when nutjobs makes crazy claims, like that comparison of Hitler and Bush.
Which is essentially my point.
Instead of discussing the real issue (illegal invasion despite the weapon inspectors doing their job), we will get a pseudo-debate, that the Bush Administration have no problem handling.
Because no sane person will believe that Bush is comparable to Hitler, so if the critisism gets associated with that rhetoric, the public will have no choice but to go with Bush.
I'm not saying that jag is a nutjob, but on this instance, she definitately argued like one.
Clinton set the groundwork for the invasion with his sanctions which killed 500,000 people...
-
Berserker,
That stuff about the Bush family and its enrichment from Nazi investments is true. Disturbing, but true. When elites smell new markets for exploitation, all moral considerations pretty much go away.
What also bothers me is this: President Reagan was shot by a family friend of the Bushes. The day before the assassination attempt, Neil Bush had dinner with the shooter's brother.
I bring this up just b/c I saw The Manchurian Candidate w/ Sinatra over the weekend and it brought the assassination attempt to mind.
Then in a related note, we have the Bin Ladens--a close business relation with the Bush family. Coincidentally, the son of that family orchestrates the 9/11 attacks.
I find these coincidences pretty entertaining in a sinister way but then again, I have an active imagination.
Exactly right. Funny, I was flipping around and caught the same show last weekend.
-
Clinton set the groundwork for the invasion with his sanctions which killed 500,000 people...
Clinton didn't set the groundwork for sanctions but he sure went along with it...
To bad more didn't do this:
Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"
-
Exactly right. Funny, I was flipping around and caught the same show last weekend.
I always wondered how the 'liberal media' would have treated Bill Clinton if his brother did the same sort of thing...or if Bill Clinton's grandfather did business with the Nazis.
That darn liberal media always let Clinton slide on everything.
And on topic, I believe that Israel should have a homeland and it should be Wyoming. There. Problem solved.
-
I always wondered how the 'liberal media' would have treated Bill Clinton if his brother did the same sort of thing...or if Bill Clinton's grandfather did business with the Nazis.
That darn liberal media always let Clinton slide on everything.
And on topic, I believe that Israel should have a homeland and it should be Wyoming. There. Problem solved.
Well, the Zionist element wouldn't have many enemies in Wyo so that's a thought :D but I think the best idea is to do away with the Zionism and just have a state where all are welcome, a state that doesn't put the needs of one people/religion over another, but that's not going to happen. Not a fan of Achmenaninjad but I think this is what he and anti-zionist Jews support. But Christian Zionists will not favor any such thing... For them, there is an endplan that needs a Jewish state to run a predestined course so there is a two faced power structure in play that virtually assures a different coarse.