Terry Jones' letter to Bush

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:56 am

Dear President Bush,

I write to you in my capacity as secretary of the World League of Despots.

It is with great pleasure that I am finally able to extend an official invitation to you to join our ranks. For many years, we have watched your efforts to fulfil the requirements necessary to join our number.

Clicky

Post by **Fender** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:20 pm

semi-related:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/11 ... index.html

Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.

Post by **MKJ** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:21 pm

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:36 pm

Fender wrote:
Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.

lol

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:38 pm

The punchline for me in Terry Jone's article is this:

It is with great pleasure that we in the World League of Despots note that you have now appropriated to yourself all the powers of arbitrary arrest and torture that Saddam once enjoyed.

Post by **seremtan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:50 pm

Fender wrote:semi-related:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/11 ... index.html
Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.

comparing bush, chavez, saddam, etc to hitler is so fucking retarded. it's no wonder the neocons have been winning the PR battle when their opponents make brainless comparisons like this

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:06 pm

seremtan wrote: comparing bush, chavez, saddam, etc to hitler is so fucking retarded. it's no wonder the neocons have been winning the PR battle when their opponents make brainless comparisons like this

The old adage of "first one to mention the Nazis loses the arguement" is complete bullshit.

He is not comparing point for point on a "who's worse" basis...he's simply pointing out the fact that there are indeed similarities to the way Bush got his mandate and how Hitler did it....as well as most despots in history.

So no....comparing Bush to Hitler or anyone else is completely relevant....as long as you're not doing stupid comparisons....such as comparing mustache sizes.

Post by **seremtan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:25 pm

yes but that requires us to buy into the 'inside job' theory of 9/11, which i've examined and after initially detecting plausibility, decided was a load of bollocks. there's some unanswered questions, no doubt, but frankly the reichstag theory doesn't stack up

so no, there's no real parallel between bush and hitler. and i was making a point about hitler comparison's in general, including the one's made with chavez, saddam, ahmedinejad etc. it's just a lazy way to make a point

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:42 pm

http://www.reason.com/links/links101006.shtml

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:58 pm

seremtan wrote:yes but that requires us to buy into the 'inside job' theory of 9/11, which i've examined and after initially detecting plausibility, decided was a load of bollocks. there's some unanswered questions, no doubt, but frankly the reichstag theory doesn't stack up

so no, there's no real parallel between bush and hitler. and i was making a point about hitler comparison's in general, including the one's made with chavez, saddam, ahmedinejad etc. it's just a lazy way to make a point

While I'm glad you've made a fundamental judgement on what happened that day, I haven't.

While I'm not in the "the neocons did it all" camp I do have several unanswered questions regarding plausibility...because I don't know enough to call it a load of bollocks yet.

While the full truth may never come out I'm in the "they saw it coming and did nothing camp"...which does not rule out plausibility. Especially when there is already an obvious example in the history books. And I think that's the guy's point.

It's like the concept of God...while I firmly believe there isn't a God, I don't know...so the possibility of there being one is just that...a possibility.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:00 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:While the full truth may never come out I'm in the "they saw it coming and did nothing" camp"...which does not rule out plausibility.

R00k wrote:http://www.reason.com/links/links101006.shtml

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:09 pm

R00k wrote:http://www.reason.com/links/links101006.shtml

More "plausibility" for ya.

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:19 pm

Yep. But apparently a mountain of plausibility at the highest levels does not knowledge make.

If a high level company manager denies knowledge of official decisions made by his direct reports, does that not still mean he was responsible for those decisions?

He hired the reports - and if he was not aware of the decisions then he was not doing his job, so was responsible through means of negligence if nothing else.

The only reason we will never truly know what happened, is because we will not draw these officials into a courthouse under oath and use words like responsibility and accountability. If we did that, they would tell us everything they knew, and quickly. One thing all chicken hawks are scared to death of, is jail time.

Post by **seremtan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:31 pm

interesting article

what i don't get though is why law enforcement would need a green light from the attorney general to do its job, i.e. deal with what they uncovered about the plot. maybe the role of the US attorney general is different from the UK attorney general (who's really just the government's lawyer), but that's the part that puzzles me: why it needed intervention from federal government to do something

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:51 pm

It's been quite a while since it played out and I read about it. But to the best of my memory, the FBI field agents had to have a special type of warrant to search Moussaui's (sp?) laptop, because it was related to terrorism.

This search warrant was subsequently denied, and then denied a couple more times after that when the agents persisted.

In light of the fact that all these Al Quaeda attack warnings were coming in, the PDB, the briefings and presentations from the CIA, etc.... Well, it makes it that much more suspicious when high officials are repeatedly making efforts to not investigate things related to Al Quaeda or terrorist activity going on in the country - especially when these are things that are done routinely any other time.

It just brings me back to pondering in wonder -- how can these guys get away with saying "There is nothing we could have possibly done," when they intentionally did not do things that standard operating procedure dictated they should have?

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:30 pm

BTW, Raimondo's article last week does a better job of summing up the pre-attack situation:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9807

Post by **seremtan** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:15 pm

btw re moussaoui's laptop: were the contents of this revealed during his trial? and if so, did they have the necessary info that would have enabled law enforcement to take down the 9/11 hijackers in time?

Post by **R00k** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:33 pm

That I don't know. Although it's pretty much a moot point now.