CIA declassifies proof Hitler alive in 1955

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How "sensitive" were the Muslims THEMSELVES...when it came to the "publicity" associated with the Saddam Hussein HANGING?

Saddam was a Sunni. The majority of Iraqis are Shia. Saddam was executed by the new Iraqi government, which was predominantly Shia. Business as usual in the middle eastern sand box.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Saddam was a Sunni. The majority of Iraqis are Shia. Saddam was executed by the new Iraqi government, which was predominantly Shia. Business as usual in the middle eastern sand box.

Do the Sunnis and the Shias hold differing "moral sensibilities" when it comes to executions or "assassinations"? Is the publicizing of the execution of a Sunni "acceptable"...while a Shia execution or assassination is supposed to be carried out in a "dignified" manner?

I'm not being sarcastic here...my inquisitiveness is 100% genuine.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do the Sunnis and the Shias hold differing "moral sensibilities" when it comes to executions or "assassinations"? Is the publicizing of the execution of a Sunni "acceptable"...while a Shia execution or assassination is supposed to be carried out in a "dignified" manner?

None of the above.

My point was that the execution of Saddam was carried out by Muslims, not by Christian infidels. That is the relevant difference, not anything having to do with Shia versus Sunni.

The Sunni radicals would have been much more upset if Saddam had been executed by Americans.

[_______]

Originally Posted by Clocker

None of the above.

My point was that the execution of Saddam was carried out by Muslims, not by Christian infidels. That is the relevant difference, not anything having to do with Shia versus Sunni.

The Sunni radicals would have been much more upset if Saddam had been executed by Americans.

I guess no one remembers the blowback from the Bush admin when cell phone video by Shia attending the hanging were released.

There was plenty of outrage by Sunni's over the further humiliation of Hussein by the Shia's. I'm not sure there would be more outrage if Christian infidels had done this. It contributed to the rise of ISIS by assuring tha Sunnis would support anyone that opposed the Shia government we installed.

The lesson was learned by those who made decisions about how to proceed with Osamas remains but, you know, giant conspiracy regardless.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Clocker

None of the above.

My point was that the execution of Saddam was carried out by Muslims, not by Christian infidels. That is the relevant difference, not anything having to do with Shia versus Sunni.

The Sunni radicals would have been much more upset if Saddam had been executed by Americans.

I understand...and I've also read where the American authorities have stated that the Bin Laden assassination was handled in a manner which was meant to avoid "offending Muslim sensibilities". But this sounds like empty rhetoric to me...because our country hasn't been particularly concerned about "Muslim sensibilities" before.

After all...weren't the Muslim sensibilities "offended" when we attacked Iraq without adequate provocation? Aren't Muslim journalists calling ISIS a "retaliatory movement"...brought on by the "unjustified" USA attack against Iraq? If we didn't pay attention to "Muslim sensibilities" then...why all the sensitivity towards Muslim sensibilities in the "Bin Laden assassination affair"?

[_______]

For those with short memories:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...ein/index.html

[_______]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I understand...and I've also read where the American authorities have stated that the Bin Laden assassination was handled in a manner which was meant to avoid "offending Muslim sensibilities". But this sounds like empty rhetoric to me...because our country hasn't been particularly concerned about "Muslim sensibilities" before.

After all...weren't the Muslim sensibilities "offended" when we attacked Iraq without adequate provocation? Aren't Muslim journalists calling ISIS a "retaliatory movement"...brought on by the "unjustified" USA attack against Iraq? If we didn't pay attention to "Muslim sensibilities" then...why all the sensitivity towards Muslim sensibilities in the Bin Laden assassination affair?

Because we learn. Even those who didn't know there was a difference between a Sunni and a Shia before invading a country rife with religious discord.

We got a little smarter for a while.

[_______]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

I think the Bin Laden thing has gone off track. My only comment was that photos of his body were taken. They were shown to people in the Armed Forces committee who confirmed them publicly.

Personally, that was good enough for me. If it wasn't for you that's fine.

My only comment on the issue is that photos were indeed taken. Beyond that I offer no argument on any issue regarding it.

I don't care about the Saddam thing as it's unrelated. FWIW I believe he is dead too.

There is no need to apologize in a thread dedicated to "Hitler was alive in 1955".

Other than the embarraresment of having contributed to it in any form which we are all now guilty of.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

After all...weren't the Muslim sensibilities "offended" when we attacked Iraq without adequate provocation? Aren't Muslim journalists calling ISIS a "retaliatory movement"...brought on by the "unjustified" USA attack against Iraq? If we didn't pay attention to "Muslim sensibilities" then...why all the sensitivity towards Muslim sensibilities in the "Bin Laden assassination affair"?

ISIS, at least to me, appears to be an organisation that is trying to capitalise on the power vacuum in parts of Iraq and Syria. Religious extremism and terrorism is a great recruiting tool for them. Standing up to the "evil empire" and fighting the Western Imperialists drives their numbers but they behave very differently than other terrorist organizations on that they seek actual territorial gains.

The other topic though is Sunnis and Shias killing each other which is par for the course over there for almost a millennia now. For them it's no big deal but us doing it is a different story and helps the narrative in the first paragraph. Hell, Iran hates ISIS and Al Queda as much as we do.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by _______

There is no need to apologize in a thread dedicated to "Hitler was alive in 1955".

Other than the embarraresment of having contributed to it in any form which we are all now guilty of.

Fringe theories commonplace around here. 4D chess what you called it?

The real conspiracy of WW2 is the Hess Flight and the fact the British government still will not declassify it and the surrounding issue of Nazi Peace Overtures. That one isn't nearly as subjective. They are actively and admittingly not letting that information public.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Clocker

None of the above.

My point was that the execution of Saddam was carried out by Muslims, not by Christian infidels. That is the relevant difference, not anything having to do with Shia versus Sunni.

The Sunni radicals would have been much more upset if Saddam had been executed by Americans.

That makes perfect sense to me, but wasn't it the US that killed his sons in battle?

Those photos were plashed all over the place also.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That makes perfect sense to me, but wasn't it the US that killed his sons in battle?

Those photos were plashed all over the place also.

What point is anyone trying to make on this thread?

That Bin Laden is alive?

That Hitler escaped?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by _______

There is no need to apologize in a thread dedicated to "Hitler was alive in 1955".

Other than the embarraresment of having contributed to it in any form which we are all now guilty of.

Granted, I am probably more open to "alternative possibilities" than many other people, but I find it curious how accepting bright people are of "official stories" with little or no evidence, when those making the claim have a vested interest in saying what they are saying, and when governments are constantly caught lying.

I'd make the odds of Hitler escaping maybe 10%, but if anything I am probably underestimating it.

Here's the evidence.

1. Witnesses and Russia claim he was dead.

I ask myself, what would a bunch of loyal Nazis say given they would most likely be trying to protect him?

I ask myself, what would Russia say about a madman that killed millions of people even if we won the war? Would they say he's still at large?

2 The bodies were burnt and no photos were taken.

Why? In the pre DNA era this would be the most logical way for people to disguise dead bodies.

3. The bodies were supposedly exhumed years later, cremated, and the ashes spread around.

Why?

4. The bone fragments that Russia said were his were later DNA tested and determined to not be his.

5. The US helped Nazi scientists sneak out of Germany and we know many leading Nazis actually did actually escape because they were later caught by Israel around the world.

6. It is believed that the Nazis built hidden escape compounds in Argentina and elsewhere in the region.

7. Reports of ex Nazis, Hitler, and troves of Nazi material all come from the same region where Nazis reportedly escaped and were eventually caught.

So I am supposed to be certain that Hitler died in the way it was officially reported when there is no body, no photo, those telling me he died had a vested interest in claiming that, one bit of physical evidence did not check out, and there were clearly high ranking Nazis that escaped?

If this were a trial, there would clearly be reasonable doubt.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

What point is anyone trying to make on this thread?

That Bin Laden is alive?

That Hitler escaped?

I am extremely cynical about governments because they're constantly caught lying and doing nefarious things. So my point is that it's actually prudent to question the "official" story and look at the evidence before blindly accepting it.

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I ask myself, what would a bunch of loyal Nazis say given they would most likely be trying to protect him?

`
I believe once his power and money were gone, I am pretty sure the number of Nazi's extremely loyal to Hitler would go with it. How many people would be loyal to Kim Jong-un if he was stripped of power and left broke?