« Bothersome Facts About Bush and Kerry | Main | Germany’s Terrible Secret: Torture in German Prisons!! »


I'm so glad that Tibi has come out with a public statement on the situation here in Germany. He has been missing from the talk show circuit for many months. He was against the second Iraq war -- he said that he felt that the negative consequences in the Muslim world would outweigh the benefits of deposing Hussein -- but he has always been one of the most thoughtful voices in the German public. He came out firmly in favor of the first Iraq war, certainly at some risk to himself.

I can only suppose that, given his perception of the psychosis here in Germany, he chose to retreat to the sidelines and withhold his opinion on Iraq 2 rather than allow it to be used as fuel to stoke the fires of the rabid anti-americanism set loose by Schröder & Co.

I was at Hugendubel the other day. Paul Berman's thoughtful book on terrorism (out in translation since February) was nowhere to be found. Instead, there was mostly the same old BS from the worst conspiracy theories to Michael Moore with a handful of more serious works.

The other day I was sitting with a German business consultant. He politely and innocently asked whether there was any substance to the theory that 9-11 never happened or at least that the Pentagon had not been attacked. He referred specifically to the conspiracy theory books that one hears so much of nowadays. I paused for a second and decided that the question really was posed innocently and responded in a gentle manner. I've known the guy for years. (But part of me wanted to slap him and tell him to wake up.)

It is even more worse. NRW server for education (for students and teachers) has lies as information. NRW Bildungsserver für SCHÜLER und LEHRER!

Please read this:

Wolfowitz: ABC-Waffen Vorwand für Krieg
Der stellvertretende US-Verteidigungsminister Wolfowitz hat in dem Magazin "Vanity Fair" eingeräumt, dass die Frage irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen in erster Line aus politischen Gründen für einen Krieg genutzt wurde.
Das Pentagon dementierte den Bericht des britischen Magazins. Wolfowitz Erklärung sei aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen worden. Er habe lediglich betonen wollen, dass es immer mehrere Gründe für den Krieg gegeben habe, hieß es.
Der britische Premier Blair sagte, er habe keinerlei Zweifel, dass doch noch Beweise für die Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden werden.


David reported about this here in his weblog.

So - when people get the wrong information, when even the institutes, which are paid by government, have lies and prejudices, how shall the people know the truth? Why didn't they report all sentences of Wolfowitz, so everybody can read the truth by himself? Vorwand? Alleged reason? No, Vanity Fair tried to say so but that wasn't the truth. So why does this Bildungsserver has the headline "Vorwand"? Is it fair report?

Here are the facts again:


Mr. Wolfowitz's words were no contradiction of anything the U.S. said before the war. The allies had always given multiple reasons for ridding the world of Saddam. British Prime Minister Tony Blair famously used the human rights rationale in a major and well-received speech in Glasgow in March.
The Vanity Fair press release also failed to include that immediately after his WMD remarks, Mr. Wolfowitz had added in the interview: "But there have always been three fundamental concerns: One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism and the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

Wenn man "Wolfowitz vanity Fair" sucht, findet man unzählige Artikel mit dem Lügenvorwurf, aber wenige richtigstellungen. Hier die Berliner Morgenpost:

Auch die Richtigstellung von Paul Wolfowitz nach den Irritationen über sein Interview in "Vanity Fair" zielt in diese Richtung. Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen seien immer nur einer, wenngleich der zentrale, von drei Gründen - neben der Unterstützung von Terrorismus und dem Terror gegen das irakische Volk - gewesen. Wenn er sage, dass man sich aus "bürokratischen Gründen" auf die Bedrohung durch die Waffen konzentriert habe, könne daraus kein "Vorwand" konstruiert werden, erklärte Paul Wolfowitz gegenüber CNN.

Die Landeszentrale hat dieselbe Falschinformation:

Für zusätzliche Irritationen sorgen die Äußerungen von Vizeverteidigungsminister Paul Wolfowitz in der der Juli-Ausgabe des britischen Magazins "Vanity Fair", die Massenvernichtungswaffen Bagdads seien niemals der wichtigste Kriegsgrund für die USA gewesen. "Aus bürokratischen Gründen" habe sich die US-Regierung auf dieses Thema konzentriert, weil es "der eine Grund war, dem jeder zustimmen konnte", sagte Wolfowitz dem Magazin.


Das ist die Landeszentrale für Politische bildung Baden-Württemberg.

Keine Zeit for updates? Oder kein Wille? Oder zu dumm? Oder Absicht?

It is impossible for one side to be indoctrination and the other to be education and therefore the correct version of things. all information is biased and therefore, when used to inform people of something, indoctrination.

What we need here in Germany is a conservative talkradio with a german Hannity or Limbaugh. This is the way to change the thinking of the german people, and radio is easy to consume. But it would be hard to finance, since the german media is so biased, it would surely labeled as "RECHTSRADIKAL" by Spiegel, Stern, etc. So it would be hard to get advertisers.

P.S.: I'm wondering if there is nobody in the USA who might want to finance a conservative, pro-USA, pro-Israel german talkradioshow. After all, it might be very helpful for the US to reduce this unbelievable bias in Germany. And a lot of the people here are totally feed up with this One-Party, PC, GDR-style biased BS in the german media.

Haim Saban, can you hear us :)
it'd be really a good way to keep it similar to this block. noone, really noone can call this little place of the truth "rechtsradikal". thats why i love this block, reading it every day. it's the perfect model of beeing critical without a right or left wing exaggeratedly.
keep your good work up !


Very interesting examples about media biased about Israel (Süddeutsche, TAZ und Tagesspiegel u.a.)

What we need here in Germany is a conservative talkradio with a german Hannity or Limbaugh. This is the way to change the thinking of the german people, and radio is easy to consume.

We had it. Failed. The likes of Heinrich Lummer and George Gafron had TV-talkshows here in Berlin. Was mildly amusing, especially Gafron bashing the damn communists (something I'd agree with - but turned off by his hardcore approach, like I am turned off by most who appear slightly fanatical)

The majority of Germans simply aren't interested in a fanatic tone anymore, be it right or left - right-wing people couldn't dish out like in the US, because of political correctness. Also don't forget: Right-wing radio in the US often comes with critical gay and criticial pro-choice undertones, btw. You can't have a partial package of right-wing. It comes as a whole. And that won't fly here.

it's the perfect model of beeing critical without a right or left wing exaggeratedly.

Suuure. I suppose this must have been the reason why Raymond and David received an invitation from Right Wing News - their fair and critical approach to both sides of the political spectrum. :-)

Klink, I ask you once again, will you please stop posting false generalizations such as that one! You are not speaking for a majority of Germans!

I noted an observation and named two examples from the right. In bi-partisan-spirit, Klink can also give two examples from the fanatic left in Berlin: Radio 100 and taz. The first died rather quickly due to lack of money and the latter can only survive because of generous donors, but also not survive on its own.

Do YOU have counter-examples for a rebuttal with an argument or just venting emotions?

And since you are upset about opinionated generalizations: Please inform David of your attitude as well, when he uses his common "the German media ..."-generalizations. Like David did just a couple of minutes ago in the comments of the Brandenburg-thread: The German media couldn't care less about who's responsible and who's not.

You know: the old problem of "pot-kettle-black" and all that...


>We had it. Failed. The likes of Heinrich Lummer and George Gafron

I dont know Gafron, but You cannot compare Lummer with Limbaugh. Limbaugh is laughing about the left, and I dont think Lummer was able to do so. The "ZDF-Magazin" with Gerhard Löwenthal was highly successful, and a talkradio show is a different thing anyway.

>Right-wing radio in the US often comes with critical gay and criticial pro-choice undertones, btw. You can't have a partial package of right-wing. It comes as a whole. And that won't fly here.

So what? A conservative german talkradio does'nt need to be pro-life or anti-gay, it does'nt need to touch this areas. And what is bad about being pro-life?

Speaking of harsh tones in German politics, I remember laughing when my son, barely 5 then, asked me why all those Germans were shouting on TV. How do you crank up the "fanatical tone" above that of a good Bundestag debate without scaring the children?

Zum Antisemitismus in deutschen Schlüsselmedien:

"Der Feind unterscheidet nicht zwischen Israelis und Juden"
Natan Scharansky zu Vorurteilen und Stereotypen

Wird Israel dämonisiert, mit doppeltem Maßstab gemessen oder stereotyp delegitimiert? Dann ist es keine politische Kritik, sondern Antisemitismus, der sich "political correct" gebärden will.
DIE WELT: In der EU machte sich der Eindruck breit, der Vorwurf des Antisemitismus, auch wenn oft berechtigt, diene der israelischen Regierung dazu, europäische Kritik, die nicht immer unberechtigt ist, einfach abzuwinken. Antisemitismus tritt ja auch in den USA verstärkt auf.
Scharansky: Ich komme gerade aus den USA zurück. Dort ist das Problem besonders an den Universitäten groß. Und wir haben nicht die Absicht, die zukünftige Führungsgeneration der wichtigsten Weltmacht antisemitischen Tendenzen preiszugeben. In den USA äußern sich diese Tendenzen in Randgruppen. In der EU aber in den Schlüsselmedien und der wachsenden moslemischen Minderheit. Was mittlerweile aber auch von den Regierungen, vor allem in Frankreich und Deutschland, erkannt wurde.


Antisemitsmus und Antiamerikanismus in Deutschland, das tut weh es zu erkennen und zuzugeben. Aber wir müssen anfangen, die Dinge beim Namen zu nennen, um sie ändern zu kennen.

Kennt jemand den offenen Brief Ralph Giordanos an die Medien? Er sagt u.a.:
"Ich aber weigere mich ganz einfach, die Maßnahmen israelischer Regierungen zum Schutze seiner Bürgerinnen und Bürger auf die gleiche Stufe mit den hinterhältigen Anschlägen arabischer Terroristen zu setzen (...)"

I dont know Gafron, but You cannot compare Lummer with Limbaugh. Limbaugh is laughing about the left, and I dont think Lummer was able to do so.

This is actually a generally good observation - Germans from all political camps often have a harder time laughing about each other, it seems.

*Yawn.* Go tell the same about David's generalizations on "The German media..." instead of "In my opinion, the German media..." or "I would guess that the German media..."

@Niko wrote:
when David quotes some German newspapers, and concludes "The German media ...", then that is a generalization out of several provided sources

I had earlier written:
I noted an observation and named two examples from the right. In bi-partisan-spirit, Klink can also give two examples from the fanatic left in Berlin:


Sind das neutrale Nachrichten, wenn N 24 um 8.00 Uhr heute morgen die Nachricht beginnt mit, "der HARDLINER Rumsfeld ist ins Wanken geraten".

Rumsfeld und Sharon werden in den Hauptnachrichten als HARDLINER bezeichnet. Denkt doch mal nach, was das ist! Information?

N-TV erwähnt die Anhörung von Rumsfeld um 8.30 Uhr mit keinem Wort.

Korrektur: N-TV bringt Rumsfeld zur vollen Stunde,a lso gerade um 10.10 Uhr. Er soll kleinlaut gewesen sein.

Rumsfeld hat aufrichtig bedauert, er war tief bewegt duch diese Vorfälle. Das war meine Beobachtung, aber mir fehlt ja die schwarze Brille der Abneigung.

RUMSFELD: "As I indicated in my remarks, we are constantly finding that we have procedures and habits that have evolved over the years from the last century that don't really fit the 21st century. They don't fit the information age, they don't fit a time when people are running around with digital cameras.

Second, with 24-hour news and digital cameras, something like this can have an impact that is just enormous.

Now, we have rules against meddling in criminal prosecutions.

As I've said, we've got — what — 18,000 criminal investigations opened every year. We've got 3,000 court martials in a year.

And when do you reach down in there and run the risk of affecting the integrity of that process because you believe there may be something in there that is so explosive, so damaging to our country, that you're willing to break the pattern and pull it up?

In this case, our habits and our patterns were that we don't do that; that these things get handled in the military justice system, they get handled in the commands, they get handled in the services as appropriate.

And that big report over there hadn't even reached the Pentagon, to my knowledge, by the time someone took that secret report and gave it to the press.

Now, it was inflammatory. If someone at this table had heard about it and gone in there and asked to get into it and do something with it, or about it, it would have been widely criticized.

When I say, I failed, I mean, I — the president was blind-sided, the Congress was blind-sided, everyone at this table was blind-sided, except for General Smith, who was in that command.

We're trying to figure out how we do that better and it isn't easy.

We've got to protect the rights of defendants. We've got to observe the proper handling of criminal investigations. And yet, when something is radioactive like this, we have to find a way to get that up so we can look at it.

I mean, that chart over there, as you suggested, suggests that they handled it darn well at the command level, and yet, look where we are. In the normal order of things, one would look at that and say,

'Good job.' And with the circumstance we're in, we have to say - 'We apologize.' It's a — that it happened and that we did not have a system or a procedure where it would get pulled up and presented in a way that it could have been managed better."

Mr. Rumsfeld, you are right. Now I wish the world a fair Democratic Party in the USA, a neutral press in Europe, which look at this new problem caused by the media which pretends to inform the public. Who gave it to the press and why? Money? Sensation? There was a fair procedure ongoing. These pictures created an enormous hatred against the US, the US-soldiers are in more danger than before. Who wanted this and why? Our right to know is so important? No.

Usually the world opinion is with those who did something bad. Usually they fear that the US does not treat the terrorists fair enough, now when the criminals are US-soldiers nobody cares for their rights to be protected. The world opinion wants to know everything right now, no matter what the law says. You are innocent as long as nobody judged you. Does this no longer exist? Strange world. The US adminstration is always wrong, no matter what they do. It is that easy.

Lutz Heuken in der WAZ vom 03.03.2004 kommentiert die vielen Toten bei Anschlägen im Irak:

Hilflose Besatzer (Überschrift)

Das alles hätte die US-Führung im Nahen Osten lernen können: Unter der Knute der israelischen Besatzung ist der Terror noch stets gewachsen.

Diese Haltung ist mainstream in dt. Medien. Man verschließt die Augen, daß die palästinensischen Terroristen die 2. Intifada beschlossen hatten, bevor Arafat sich mit Clinton getroffen und dankend eine Einigung abgelehnt hatte, weil 4 Millionen "Flüchtlinge" nicht "zurückkehren" sollten und 93 % nicht genug waren. Es gibt Reden und Dokumente darüber, (interessiert sich jemand dafür, bitte Bescheid geben), daß Arafat gar nicht verhandeln wollte, sondern zum Ablehnen dorthin geflogen ist. Es gibt Dokumente darüber, daß Sharon mit Arafat abgesprochen hat, daß er den Tempelberg besucht. Es gibt Reden und die Hamas-Charta, daß der Terror gegen Israel das Ziel hat, ganz Israel mit allen Juden zu zerstören. Wie kann dann die "Besatzung" den Terror verursachen? Trotzdem schreibt hier ein ahnungsloser Lutz Heuken, die Knute der Besatzung führt zu mehr Terror. Wie ich schon oft geschrieben habe, dies ist leider Allgemeinmeinung in deutschen Köpfen, eine Haltung, die tödlich ist für Israel und den Terroristen ein menschliches Gesicht gibt, sie sind Opfer, die häßliche Fratze, die bleibt verborgen. Terror wegen Besatzung? Wann hören die dt. Journalisten auf, diesen Unsinn zu verbreiten? Warum hat man derartiges nicht auf der Antisemitismuskonferenz besprochen?

Dann überträgt er das noch auf die USA: Terror wegen der Besatzung. Na, dann ist ja alles gut. Und ich dachte schon, Terror wäre eine Weltgefahr.

Richard Herzinger,
Leiter des Politikressorts der „Zeit", Hamburg
- Gerade aufgeschlossene Europäer sind heute verwirrt: Jahrelang kämpfte man gegen koloniale Unterdrückung und Ausbeutung armer Länder, etwa in der dritten Welt, und fühlte sich damit auf der richtigen Seite. Antisemitismus erschien während dessen als Produkt des europäischen Nationalismus und schien ein Teil von Rassismus zu sein.
- Heute stellt sich die Welt komplizierter da: Plötzlich sind es islamistische und rechtsextreme Antisemiten, die Israels Politik als Kolonialismus darstellen und mit der NS-Zeit vergleichen und die damit Anschluss an Mehrheitsdiskurse suchen.
- Der Nahostkonflikt wird als Kontext genutzt, um alte antijüdische Weltverschwörungstheorien wieder aufleben zu lassen.
- Ein Medienproblem ist: Die europäischen Medien zeigen den Nahostkonflikt als das zentrale Problem der arabischen Welt, ohne dessen Lösung keine Verbesserung möglich sei. Das bietet zum einen arabischen Regimes eine bequeme Ausrede, um alle Reformen abzulehnen. Zum anderen erweckt es bei Europäern den Anschein, als sei es Israel, das die friedliche Koexistenz von muslimischer und westlicher Welt bedrohe.
- Kritik an Israel ist legitim und wichtig, und wird in europäischen Medien ja auch jeden Tag geübt. Im Gegenzug darf aber auch die Gefahr nicht heruntergespielt werden, die von Israels Gegnern für alle demokratischen Länder ausgeht.
- In Europa muss die Zivilgesellschaft sich einsetzen gegen die Islamisierung ihrer muslimischen Mitmenschen.
- Gesetze werden Antisemitismus nicht effektiv bekämpfen. Viel mehr muss die ganze Gesellschaft für das Problem sensibilisiert werden, um eine fundamentale Veränderung im Bewusstsein zu erreichen.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27