9/11

[MCFCinUSA]

I see it like this Matty, most people on here don't know what it's like to be elected into public office, or how governments or large networks/administrations (like the CIA or FBI) work, and neither do they have personal experience of having vast wealth.

So you do get moronic views and ideas on people like Bush and his family, because they simply don't know what they're talking about, and there's a complete disconnect and lack of understanding.

For instance, just imagine let's say you've got $800 million at your disposal. Sure your portfolio and business managers who run that nice little line of interests for you are trying to maximise its return, and grow it further, but they've got absolutely bugger all to do with making national policy.

Also, if you're the president, you don't sit there in public office making decisions about how you can personally line your own pockets by creating death and destruction. You might when it comes to writing books a la Tony Blair (who I always thought was a slug) and other such legitimate ways, and also by good old fashioned embezzlement, bribery and corruption - which is rife in politics.

However, wanton and far-fetched global destruction and world domination/control don't come into the above scenarios, at least not in democratic first world countries.

Seriously, if you're worth $800 million do you really start thinking 'hmmmm, like to get my assets up to $1,600 million by next year. If I allow the destruction of downtown Manhattan and the economic dislocation of trillions of dollars of economic activity globally, and the loss of tens of thousands of lives, maybe I can make an additional $800 million for myself. Let me get the chiefs of staff on to this immediately and see how best we can do it, along with perverting the CIA and FBI, and all our international co-operative agencies normal objectives and roles in keeping our country safe'.

Bush is likely to have done what he did as much for religious reasons (and ignorance) as for strategic (national) economic ones - NOT PERSONAL ONES, and him trying to go down in history as the president who 'solved' the Middle Eastern problem, and don't ask me whatever one that was - it only existed in his own mind and those of his advisors in gov't. It was all politics, not personal gain, at least not personal economic gain. He might have been a vain president seeking personal glory (and power to compensate for his own feelings of inadequacy, ehehe, check into Stone's compelling biopic 'W') but all this talk about vested interested and global/gov't manipulation and people knowing this but not doing anything about it is absolute drivel that no five year-old, let alone a sane adult, would ever countenance if they had half a brain.

Stupidity is all you have to look for as an answer to most things.

 

[Ricster]

I see it like this Matty, most people on here don't know what it's like to be elected into public office, or how governments or large networks/administrations (like the CIA or FBI) work, and neither do they have personal experience of having vast wealth.

So you do get moronic views and ideas on people like Bush and his family, because they simply don't know what they're talking about, and there's a complete disconnect and lack of understanding.

For instance, just imagine let's say you've got $800 million at your disposal. Sure your portfolio and business managers who run that nice little line of interests for you are trying to maximise its return, and grow it further, but they've got absolutely bugger all to do with making national policy.

Also, if you're the president, you don't sit there in public office making decisions about how you can personally line your own pockets by creating death and destruction. You might when it comes to writing books a la Tony Blair (who I always thought was a slug) and other such legitimate ways, and also by good old fashioned embezzlement, bribery and corruption - which is rife in politics.

However, wanton and far-fetched global destruction and world domination/control don't come into the above scenarios, at least not in democratic first world countries.

Seriously, if you're worth $800 million do you really start thinking 'hmmmm, like to get my assets up to $1,600 million by next year. If I allow the destruction of downtown Manhattan and the economic dislocation of trillions of dollars of economic activity globally, and the loss of tens of thousands of lives, maybe I can make an additional $800 million for myself. Let me get the chiefs of staff on to this immediately and see how best we can do it, along with perverting the CIA and FBI, and all our international co-operative agencies normal objectives and roles in keeping our country safe'.

Bush is likely to have done what he did as much for religious reasons (and ignorance) as for strategic (national) economic ones - NOT PERSONAL ONES, and him trying to go down in history as the president who 'solved' the Middle Eastern problem, and don't ask me whatever one that was - it only existed in his own mind and those of his advisors in gov't. It was all politics, not personal gain, at least not personal economic gain. He might have been a vain president seeking personal glory (and power to compensate for his own feelings of inadequacy, ehehe, check into Stone's compelling biopic 'W') but all this talk about vested interested and global/gov't manipulation and people knowing this but not doing anything about it is absolute drivel that no five year-old, let alone a sane adult, would ever countenance if they had half a brain.

Stupidity is all you have to look for as an answer to most things.

Can you remind me why the States and the Brittish went to war with Iraq?

 

[levets]

I'm absolutely amazed at the responses on here.

Didn't ANYONE actually go to see City play that day?

I was on my way to Notts County that night for a League Cup tie, stopped off in a pub in Matlock and watched it unfold.

Absolutely shocking, but it didn't stop me heading to Meadow Lane that night!

Like I say, did no one go to Nottingham that night?

I went to the game in Nottingham... Very strange atmosphere though... a minutes silence before the game, though at that stage we only knew the basic facts.

Did we win 3-1?

 

[Matty]

I see it like this Matty, most people on here don't know what it's like to be elected into public office, or how governments or large networks/administrations (like the CIA or FBI) work, and neither do they have personal experience of having vast wealth.

So you do get moronic views and ideas on people like Bush and his family, because they simply don't know what they're talking about, and there's a complete disconnect and lack of understanding.

For instance, just imagine let's say you've got $800 million at your disposal. Sure your portfolio and business managers who run that nice little line of interests for you are trying to maximise its return, and grow it further, but they've got absolutely bugger all to do with making national policy.

Also, if you're the president, you don't sit there in public office making decisions about how you can personally line your own pockets by creating death and destruction. You might when it comes to writing books a la Tony Blair (who I always thought was a slug) and other such legitimate ways, and also by good old fashioned embezzlement, bribery and corruption - which is rife in politics.

However, wanton and far-fetched global destruction and world domination/control don't come into the above scenarios, at least not in democratic first world countries.

Seriously, if you're worth $800 million do you really start thinking 'hmmmm, like to get my assets up to $1,600 million by next year. If I allow the destruction of downtown Manhattan and the economic dislocation of trillions of dollars of economic activity globally, and the loss of tens of thousands of lives, maybe I can make an additional $800 million for myself. Let me get the chiefs of staff on to this immediately and see how best we can do it, along with perverting the CIA and FBI, and all our international co-operative agencies normal objectives and roles in keeping our country safe'.

Bush is likely to have done what he did as much for religious reasons (and ignorance) as for strategic (national) economic ones - NOT PERSONAL ONES, and him trying to go down in history as the president who 'solved' the Middle Eastern problem, and don't ask me whatever one that was - it only existed in his own mind and those of his advisors in gov't. It was all politics, not personal gain, at least not personal economic gain. He might have been a vain president seeking personal glory (and power to compensate for his own feelings of inadequacy, ehehe, check into Stone's compelling biopic 'W') but all this talk about vested interested and global/gov't manipulation and people knowing this but not doing anything about it is absolute drivel that no five year-old, let alone a sane adult, would ever countenance if they had half a brain.

Stupidity is all you have to look for as an answer to most things.

Can you remind me why the States and the Brittish went to war with Iraq?

Well, it wasn't part of a conspiracy that involved the US government and other agencies participating in, and turning a blind eye to, the worst terrorist attrocity ever witnessed.

I'd suggest we entered Iraq on the back of misinformation (not necessarily intentional misinformation) and with the agenda of putting right what we got wrong in the first Gulf War (namely stopping, turning round and leaving Iraq without deposing Sadaam Hussein). Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq in order to make money, whether it be through oil or otherwise, really needs to get a better grasp on reality.

 

[Ricster]

Can you remind me why the States and the Brittish went to war with Iraq?

Well, it wasn't part of a conspiracy that involved the US government and other agencies participating in, and turning a blind eye to, the worst terrorist attrocity ever witnessed.

I'd suggest we entered Iraq on the back of misinformation (not necessarily intentional misinformation) and with the agenda of putting right what we got wrong in the first Gulf War (namely stopping, turning round and leaving Iraq without deposing Sadaam Hussein). Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq in order to make money, whether it be through oil or otherwise, really needs to get a better grasp on reality.

Misinformation maybe how you put it, but lies is the way i put it. WMD's were never found and Bush and Blair are nothing short of war criminals.

They needed a reason to go to war and 9/11 was that reason. Also, going back to what i said earlier, CIA and NSA both had intelligence that a terror attack was going to happen in the US yet did nothing. Maybe they didn't expect it to be on the scale it was but nonetheless they knew.

 

[Matty]

Well, it wasn't part of a conspiracy that involved the US government and other agencies participating in, and turning a blind eye to, the worst terrorist attrocity ever witnessed.

I'd suggest we entered Iraq on the back of misinformation (not necessarily intentional misinformation) and with the agenda of putting right what we got wrong in the first Gulf War (namely stopping, turning round and leaving Iraq without deposing Sadaam Hussein). Anyone who thinks we went to war with Iraq in order to make money, whether it be through oil or otherwise, really needs to get a better grasp on reality.

Misinformation maybe how you put it, but lies is the way i put it. WMD's were never found and Bush and Blair are nothing short of war criminals.

They needed a reason to go to war and 9/11 was that reason. Also, going back to what i said earlier, CIA and NSA both had intelligence that a terror attack was going to happen in the US yet did nothing. Maybe they didn't expect it to be on the scale it was but nonetheless they knew.

Why did they need a reason to go to war? That implies a desire to go to war. What benefit was there from going to war with Iraq? Again, please don't say financial gain. The CIA and NSA most likely heard some level of "chatter" about a potential terrorist attack, however without knowing EXACTLY whet they knew it's impossible to judge them on their lack of action. Maybe they didn't have enough information to know who, how and when. Maybe they hear intelligence that a terror attack is likely to happen every week of every year, with 99% of those ending up in nothing. We can't sit here without a shread of credible evidence and become judge and jury on these matters.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We went to war in Iraq for a variety of reasons.

1) Because George Bush Snr couldn't go against the UN resolution at the time of the original gulf War limiting the action to liberating Kuwait. This clearly rankled the American establishment, particularly when it became clear Saddam not only survived but prospered

2) Because the so-called neo-cons wanted to send a message to the rest of the Arab world and invading Iraq was the most convenient way. Saddam Huseein was a splendid pantomime villain.

3) Saddam could have quite easily proved he had long since ended the production of WMD but chose not to do so, possibly because he didn't want to be seen as weak and presumably thought the Americans wouldn't actually do anything.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

Ricster, these things involve complex systems and as such are not subject to overly simplistic analysis and a 'black-white' decision like 'more money' or 'more oil', although economic motivations certainly play a part but NOT at the individual level to which you subscribe. Gov'ts are made of people, committees, and they don't act in a vacuum. Also, people in democratic gov'ts don't act in ways that are likely to get themselves personally imprisoned, locked up in mental institutions, and risking everything they've ever worked for - especially when they've already got significant wealth and an extra few hundred million (even if it were available) isn't their problem or even their desire.

for example, let's say you're part of a international intelligence directive and you've discovered or are working on penetrating some plot to hijack an aircraft, but you don't yet know all the details (like the target or the origin/source of the attack).

hypothetically let's imagine you've just got enough data and intel, and you then report this to your bosses. Do you honestly think after you've found out a threat of national importance your superiors pass this up to their superiors and so on and so forth until it gets to 'Mr Big' (in your eyes - because you think the president is all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-governing, all-doing) who then says "hold it boys, we don't want to act on this because I've got a few bucks riding on the petro-chemical industry and own stocks in weapons manufacturers so let's sit tight for six months more and see what happens eh?"

you've just gone and stuck your life on the line to discover a threat to your country, as have numerous other people in your and your sister agencies, and you think someone, a singular person, like the president of the United States stamps his authority over everything and everyone else and simply perverts it for personal gain?

a bit stupid sounding isn't it?

just like the people who think that the World Trade Centre was 'an inside job' for similar motivations without thinking about the implications both logistically and politically, and personally of what that would actually mean in reality - because it could never happen.

trying to understand world events and the mechanics of what's going on in governments and how political leaders work isn't simplistic, and defeats even the most knowledged and those who are often closest to events - as there were dissenters to what was eventually carried through by the Neo-cons.

I'm not always a big fan of Oliver Stone, but he's made a couple of decent films, 'W' being one of the most interesting and revealing; if you've not seen it already you might enjoy it. Also, 'In The Loop' and 'The Contender'. Politics might be a dirty shitty business, but it's rarely as black/white or as simplistic a lot of people seem to believe, and at the largest most expansive levels it's got nothing to do with how you might perceive or understand matters as they apply to people like us, with our more mundane existence and modus operandi.

 

[Skashion]

What's your expertise in politics MCFCinUSA, do you work in Washington or something? Sorry if you've already explained this on Bluemoon before.

 

[lee-mcfc]

i cant bluddy remember :(
cant even remember yesterday that much


r.i.p to everyone that died

 

[MCFCinUSA]

What's your expertise in politics MCFCinUSA, do you work in Washington or something? Sorry if you've already explained this on Bluemoon before.

no one needs to be an expert on anything to post on this site, but do you fancy yourself as policing this forum or are you just looking to get personal and pick an argument/make a ludicrous personal point or two?

I don't deal with politics myself, but I do rub shoulders with certain people who do for a living, which is why I laugh at some of the ridiculous things I see and hear sometimes from people with little to no clue.

occasionally it all gets a little too much and I lose it and post myself, LOL, with obvious results. I should know better, and I should waste my time in other ways....

silly me.

 

[Challenger1978]

What's your expertise in politics MCFCinUSA, do you work in Washington or something? Sorry if you've already explained this on Bluemoon before.

no one needs to be an expert on anything to post on this site, but do you fancy yourself as policing this forum or are you just looking to get personal and pick an argument/make a ludicrous personal point or two?

I don't deal with politics myself, but I do rub shoulders with certain people who do for a living, which is why I laugh at some of the ridiculous things I see and hear sometimes from people with little to no clue.

occasionally it all gets a little too much and I lose it and post myself, LOL, with obvious results. I should know better, and I should waste my time in other ways....

silly me.

You're the one attacking and belittling people in this thread, basically you're being an arrogant ****. I'm not saying that the points you're making are wrong its just you're going at it like a bull in a china shop.

 

[Skashion]

no one needs to be an expert on anything to post on this site, but do you fancy yourself as policing this forum or are you just looking to get personal and pick an argument/make a ludicrous personal point or two?

I don't deal with politics myself, but I do rub shoulders with certain people who do for a living, which is why I laugh at some of the ridiculous things I see and hear sometimes from people with little to no clue.

occasionally it all gets a little too much and I lose it and post myself, LOL, with obvious results. I should know better, and I should waste my time in other ways....

silly me.

Apparently you didn't realise that was a genuine question. Of the two of us only there's only one here who's being 'Internet. Serious Business'.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

very quickly, because I've got a friend heading over here and have been lying in bed this morning so need to get moving...

- but Skashion and Challenger you're both right in that I don't tolerate fools very easily and it's not something that I'm very proud of; that said when you get on forums or interact with people online you know what the deal can be.

I'm usually posting when I'm stuck in some hotel or airport, or am up too early in the morning, or last thing at night, and most of what I'm looking for and enjoying is the humour and wit of this site.

You don't often have the time or energy to finesse things, aside from not knowing most people personally, which also makes a huge difference.

I don't go looking to rub people up the wrong way, and for sure there might come a time when I'm looking for a ticket or some assistance in getting to a match when people from here have been a big help to me - so those who are trolling or seeking simply to aggravate for the heck of it will have it bite them in the bum if they're not kicked-off from here first.

we're not all perfect or paragons of virtue, and we all put our trousers on one leg at a time, unless you're one of these guys hired by Levis:-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYulAzNA2M[/youtube]

 

[buzzer1]

Nah, it was dem der Muslim bastuds, ermmmm a fink al go an kik fuk in Iraq wi me dokkers on an den gerra loada me mates tergevver an tel evwyone a loada lars.(lies).

Yeeehaaa, round em up and move em out i say.

 

[Soulboy]

Dumbstruck or not, I thought the Secret Service, US Military etc. has procedures in place to get the President to a place of safety and in a situation where he has full control of the armed forces. That's why a guy (or three to be exact, one from the Army, Navy and Air Force who work in 8 hour shifts) follows no more than a few feet away with the nuclear launch codes.

When the Chief of Staff comes up to you and says "we're under attack", then surely the Secret Service would have bundled him into his limo and got him aboard Air Force Once immedidately.

Crazy.

Scall, dont you think that maybe the US Government knew of these impending attacks, hence why President Bush was in Florida at the time? We've all seen the emotionless video when Bush gets told about the attacks. He really doesn't seem that surprised by the events that are taking place.

I dont think, unlike some, that the US Government had a hand in these attacks, but i do believe they knew they were going to happen and did nothing to stop them.

-- Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:52 am --

If you seriously believe George Bush is on par with Hitler I feel it may be you that needs to see a psychiatrist!

I'm all for giving our buddies from across the pond a bit of stick with their foreign policy, but to equate that with Hitler really does diminish what Hitler did.

Would your view change if you found out that conviniently the company that got the arms contract for the impending war on terror was in a bit of a financial mess, but managed to secure the contract for the war?

But the clincher for me about that contract is that George Bush Snr was a director of that company and had a lot of monies tied up within, monies he would have probably lost if it wasn't for his good old son George Dubya.

-- Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:01 am --

The USA didn't consciously target civilians, whereas Hitler saw that as a pre-requisite of any campaign.

The USA didn't round up thousands of Muslims in the country and send them to concentration camps.

The USA (George Bush) targeted only Iraq (which it is now in the process of departing) and Afghanistan.

Hitler targeted just about every country in Europe, a fair few in Africa and Asia, as well as eventually declaring war on the USA.

If you believe that the destruction of a whole race of European Jews, and the death of 6 million innocents is similar to what Bush did in Afghanistan then all you are doing is giving succour to all the quasi-fascists in this country who can now state that, according to you... "Well Hitler was no worse than Bush"... which is attention seeking nonsense.

In my opinion.

The USA didn't consciously target civilians, whereas Hitler saw that as a pre-requisite of any campaign.

No they didn't, but CIA and NSA had recieved intelligence of a major threat to US shores, something they decided to ignore. The reason has never been given.

The USA didn't round up thousands of Muslims in the country and send them to concentration camps.

No, again your correct, but what they did do was move certain Muslim's out of the country in the weeks up to that attack. Also, why have Jewish WTC workers since come out and said that some recieved warnings about not going to work on the day of the attack? Yes, some Jews were killed in the attack, but a lot more could have been without warning.

The USA (George Bush) targeted only Iraq (which it is now in the process of departing) and Afghanistan.

So far they have.
The US have also parted warnings to Iran, Korea and more recently Israel over their Nuclear testing programmes and conflict respectively.

I have read many, many books on the Gulf wars and The Bush family; I am well aware of the links with Haliburton and other global companies.

But if you're expecting me to get into a debate based on your conspiracy theories that the USA were party to the 9/11 attacks then I'll butt out if you don't mind.

This stuff is on par with Man didn't land on the moon... if there was clear evidence that Bush knew about the attacks, don't you think someone would have come up with it by now?

While I would happily join in with you berating Bush and his corrupt Governance, that wasn't the point of my post.

It was about Bush being comparable to Hitler... which I don't think he was.

I like the way you disagreed with my points, even though you agreed with them at the same time!

Oh, and Muslims doesn't have an apostrophe... you really should read the Greengrocer's Apostrophe thread!

;)

 

[davymcfc]

I'm absolutely amazed at the responses on here.

Didn't ANYONE actually go to see City play that day?

I was on my way to Notts County that night for a League Cup tie, stopped off in a pub in Matlock and watched it unfold.

Absolutely shocking, but it didn't stop me heading to Meadow Lane that night!

Like I say, did no one go to Nottingham that night?

I went to the game in Nottingham... Very strange atmosphere though... a minutes silence before the game, though at that stage we only knew the basic facts.

Did we win 3-1?

won 4-2 i think. after extra time.

 

[hilts]

Scall, dont you think that maybe the US Government knew of these impending attacks, hence why President Bush was in Florida at the time? We've all seen the emotionless video when Bush gets told about the attacks. He really doesn't seem that surprised by the events that are taking place.

I dont think, unlike some, that the US Government had a hand in these attacks, but i do believe they knew they were going to happen and did nothing to stop them.

-- Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:52 am --



Would your view change if you found out that conviniently the company that got the arms contract for the impending war on terror was in a bit of a financial mess, but managed to secure the contract for the war?

But the clincher for me about that contract is that George Bush Snr was a director of that company and had a lot of monies tied up within, monies he would have probably lost if it wasn't for his good old son George Dubya.

-- Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:01 am --



The USA didn't consciously target civilians, whereas Hitler saw that as a pre-requisite of any campaign.

No they didn't, but CIA and NSA had recieved intelligence of a major threat to US shores, something they decided to ignore. The reason has never been given.

The USA didn't round up thousands of Muslims in the country and send them to concentration camps.

No, again your correct, but what they did do was move certain Muslim's out of the country in the weeks up to that attack. Also, why have Jewish WTC workers since come out and said that some recieved warnings about not going to work on the day of the attack? Yes, some Jews were killed in the attack, but a lot more could have been without warning.

The USA (George Bush) targeted only Iraq (which it is now in the process of departing) and Afghanistan.

So far they have.
The US have also parted warnings to Iran, Korea and more recently Israel over their Nuclear testing programmes and conflict respectively.

I have read many, many books on the Gulf wars and The Bush family; I am well aware of the links with Haliburton and other global companies.

But if you're expecting me to get into a debate based on your conspiracy theories that the USA were party to the 9/11 attacks then I'll butt out if you don't mind.

This stuff is on par with Man didn't land on the moon... if there was clear evidence that Bush knew about the attacks, don't you think someone would have come up with it by now?

While I would happily join in with you berating Bush and his corrupt Governance, that wasn't the point of my post.

It was about Bush being comparable to Hitler... which I don't think he was.

I like the way you disagreed with my points, even though you agreed with them at the same time!

Oh, and Muslims doesn't have an apostrophe... you really should read the Greengrocer's Apostrophe thread!

;)

i would have to agree with you, there is no way a bunch of half wit politicians and civil servants could keep this a secret if they had any involvement in 9/11, governments aint that clever.

I do believe however that bush and others decided after going to war that they would as a by product make some money out of it for themselves, if you think that a country making commercial decisions to benefit a country and themselves is justified depends on your outlook.

im guessing their rational apart from greed was that if countries like france and germany didnt want to get involved why should they benefit from any arms or reconstruction deals

many a foreign policy is unfortunately decided on commercial gain as well as moral commitment

 

[fawada28]

I live here in the states (Kansas) but I remember I was in school going to math class and one of the other teachers walked and said the towers had been hit. The rest of the day was just watching the news and thinkin the world was about to end. The mood went from sorrow to anger in a couple days and the wars started and the rest is history. Over the last few years though my eyes have been open to the real truth about what happened and the reasons behind it. If you haven't seen the movie Loose Change I recommend you check it out if your interested in learning about it.

heres a link to the first part and it continues on: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-wuTljVCI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-wuTljVCI</a>

All the best Blues

 

[Soulboy]

I have read many, many books on the Gulf wars and The Bush family; I am well aware of the links with Haliburton and other global companies.

But if you're expecting me to get into a debate based on your conspiracy theories that the USA were party to the 9/11 attacks then I'll butt out if you don't mind.

This stuff is on par with Man didn't land on the moon... if there was clear evidence that Bush knew about the attacks, don't you think someone would have come up with it by now?

While I would happily join in with you berating Bush and his corrupt Governance, that wasn't the point of my post.

It was about Bush being comparable to Hitler... which I don't think he was.

I like the way you disagreed with my points, even though you agreed with them at the same time!

Oh, and Muslims doesn't have an apostrophe... you really should read the Greengrocer's Apostrophe thread!

;)

i would have to agree with you, there is no way a bunch of half wit politicians and civil servants could keep this a secret if they had any involvement in 9/11, governments aint that clever.

I do believe however that bush and others decided after going to war that they would as a by product make some money out of it for themselves, if you think that a country making commercial decisions to benefit a country and themselves is justified depends on your outlook.

im guessing their rational apart from greed was that if countries like france and germany didnt want to get involved why should they benefit from any arms or reconstruction deals

many a foreign policy is unfortunately decided on commercial gain as well as moral commitment

Don't diasgree with any of that.

However, my point was that Bush was not comparable to Hitler.

That was all.

I was not defending Bush. Trust me, I am well aware of him and his family's dealings over the years.

But I still maintain he was nothing as compared to Hitler.