« The Al-Sadi Connection: Gerhard Schroeder and the Seven of Diamonds | Main | The Schroeder Way to Solve a Crisis »

Comments

What they'll never tell their readers that Putin's course now has been set. If he doesn't pursue the terrorists rigeurously, his government will fall. Russians will find someone who will - thus express their will.
I'd rather Germany did not face such a non-choice, and that their media was looking at it from a strategic perspective. Only then will people be able to debate it on any scale, and start to concider the consequences of each choice that they will have.

I think we have to consider the possibility that the so-called 'terrorists' were actually defending those poor kids from the Moscow Government, who actually killed them all. That is what it means to be open-minded, isn't it?

Niko,

This time I am going to have to disagree with you....

It was about..........


ROOT CAUSES.

Quit beating about the Bush, everyone. It was about Bush!

Surely you know that Mossad set the whole thing up to make Muslims and Arabs look bad... Didn't you notice how there were no Jewish kids at school that day??

“Die FAZ war einst das Flagschiff des Qualitätsjournalismus in Deutschland”.
Und wird noch immer von vielen so gesehen. Eine ganze Armee von hochgebildete Intellektuellen marschiert im Geist mit ihre Fahne mit. Bis weit über die Grenze Deutschlands.

“Die FAZ war einst das Flagschiff des Qualitätsjournalismus in Deutschland”.
Und wird noch immer von vielen so gesehen. Eine ganze Armee von hochgebildete Intellektuellen marschiert im Geist mit ihre Fahne mit. Bis weit über die Grenze Deutschlands.

Now the russian defence secretary said that Russia will consider pre-emptive strikes against terrorists world wide. I wonder if we will see the peace-loving masses in Moscow, Berlin and SFO protesting against this "terrible aggession".
Oh, by the way, Mr. Putin, I am sure your trusted allies Gerhard and Jaques will be somewhat disappointed, now that you are acting like this bad evil man from Texas.
If it wouldn't be so sad, it is almost funny!
JR

That is one of our greatest problems: FAZ, FR, SZ and so on, they THINK they are the greatest thinker in the world. And most of the readers believe this.

With this weblog David can show their lies and their manipulation, that serious journalism is more than that. They refer to each other, they are everywhere in the media, they repeat their common nonsense again and again. Difficult to discover their silliness. Who has the time to prove what they write?

Read the FAZ today: "Cheneys Attacke auf Kerry sorgt für Wirbel" and then the whole article is about Kerry's attacks against Bush! But his attacks are of course no attack, they agree with Kerry, so they don't realize his attacks.

David,

You wrote 'the terrorists - whom Ms. Holm always deferentially denominates "tormentors" and "kidnappers" '

Holm mentions the word "terror", "terrorists" or variants thereof more than 10 time in her short article and actually does refer them as "terrorists", e.g.:

"Die Terroristen, die medienwirksam vorgeführt haben, wie man mit verhältnismäßig geringem Aufwand ..."
"Die grausame Prüfung des Terroranschlages"
"das Krebsgeschwür des Terrors"
"für die Terroristen Verständnis kundtut"
"Als Terroristen stürben sie einen relativen Heldentod "
"Die Sicherheitskräfte behaupten, die Terroristen, "
"die jüngsten Terrorakte"
"feuernde Terroristen"
"Terroropfer"

Also, you sharply criticise Holm for allegedly describing the terrorist as: "humans". But in the context of that paragraph, "Ihresgleichen" ("their own kind") IMO refers to the nationality of the terrorists (i.e. '"eigene" Leute, außer Tschetschenen auch Russen und einen Osseten"). Holm's description of the terrorists as "humans who have turned into intelligent weapons" makes it quite clear that "ihresgleichen" does not equate terrorists and victims in any ethical sense. Unless you read the sentence as follows: Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind, inmitten der schutzlosen Schafherde von ihresgleichen (d.h. inmitten von Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind).

Regards

Note from David: Read the German text, cyllos. I didn't say Holm didn't use the word "terrorists" in her article. Here's what I said: "Unfreiwillige Komik liegt in der Aussage, die Terroristen - von Frau Holm eher dezent als "Peiniger" und "Entführer" bezeichnet - wären so enttäuscht von der genannten niedrigeren Zahl von Geiseln gewesen, daß es zu einer "Verschärfung" der Lage kam." So I referred to a specific section, where she used expressions that sound more favorable for the child killing terrorists. The English translation might be misunderstood, but in my opinion is still correctly referring to this one section.

Just as an aside: the instances you refer to - where Holm used the words "terror" or "terrorists" - are mostly instances where Holm quotes other folks, and then goes on to criticize them for various mistakes they supposedly made.

Your interpretation of Holm's sentence: "Die Überlebenden beschreiben das moderne Schlachtfeld: Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind, inmitten der schutzlosen Schafherde von ihresgleichen." is at best confusing - but more likely just a forlorn attempt to save whatever reputation is left of this discredited journalist. Holm called the child killers "Menschen" ("humans") and by using the term "ihresgleichen" ("of their own kind") equates them with the hostages. Your interpretation of "ihresgleichen" as meaning the nationality is obviously wrong. Chechnians, Ossetians, Russians are not nationals "of their own kind" - not in the perception of these people themselves.

But this is all just discussing details. Let's look at the broad picture. From the start (headline: The Lies about Beslan) to the end of this polemic Holm tries to discredit Putin and the Russian society. This article is not about child killing terrorists or the poor folks who were murdered. The main hypotheses of Holm are:
- The Russian authorities lied about the number of hostages
- The terror was caused by Russian military attacking Chechenya
- The Russian society has resigned to terror and doesn't care if every three month a couple of hundred people are killed
- The Chechenyan terrorists have no jobs, no options for the future other than being tortured to death by Russian KGB types - terror enables them to die as a hero
- Taking hostages and killing them is just a media campaign of terrorists, set up against the media campaings of the Kremlin
- Russian troops have started the shooting, not the terrorists

and so on...

It is so obvious that Holm has produced a dirty piece of biased journalism - biased against Putin, his government and the Russian society. Holm makes the terrorists appear as victims, who have become terrorists ("intelligent weapons", whatever that means...) because of the actions of Russia.

Or did I misunderstand the aim of the Holm article? Did Holm in fact provide a balanced view of the Beslan tragedy, with equal pluses and minuses for both sides? Is this a piece of investigative journalism in the best tradition of the German media?

Let me know...

“Die FAZ war einst das Flagschiff des Qualitätsjournalismus in Deutschland”.


Die Betonung liegt auf "war". Mitunter ein Grund, weshalb ich sie nicht mehr im Abo habe, und nur noch das nehme, was ich kostenlos bekomme. Die "Weltwoche" macht sich bedeutend besser bezahlt. Alles andere ist mir einfach zu deutsch - immer die gleichen Themen: Hartz IV, Rechtsextremismus, Mautdebakel, Bush-Bashing. Mit der Zeit kann man davon durchaus auch depressiv werden.

@Downer: Volle Zustimmung - ich kann den Schmutz in der deutschen Blätterlandschaft auch nicht mehr sehen/lesen. Da kann man schon von Papierverschwendung sprechen. Schade um die Autoren, die noch wirklich gute Artikel schreiben - die verpasst man dann.

David, just a few comments:

#1
here is what you wrote: "Unintentionally humorous is the statement that the terrorists - whom Ms. Holm always deferentially denominates "tormentors" and "kidnappers" - were so disappointed (...)"

Are you saying that the word "ALWAYS" refers to this specific paragraph only and not to the article as a whole (ie "always" = in this specific paragraph only, but not in the following and the preceding paragraph and the rest of the article")?

#2
You wrote:
"Just as an aside: the instances you refer to - where Holm used the words "terror" or "terrorists" - are mostly instances where Holm quotes other folks, and then goes on to criticize them for various mistakes they supposedly made."

Your argument cuts both ways: The instance where Holm mentions "Peiniger" is also an instance where Holm quotes other folks, victims in this case. Besides, I don't agree that they are "mostly" instances of the kind you have described, only a few are. Count them, if you don't believe me.

#3
You wrote:
"Your interpretation of Holm's sentence: "Die Überlebenden beschreiben das moderne Schlachtfeld: Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind, inmitten der schutzlosen Schafherde von ihresgleichen." is at best confusing - but more likely just a forlorn attempt to save whatever reputation is left of this discredited journalist."

You have guessed wrong, David. This is not about saving anyone's reputation. Let's agree to not resort to ad hominems before the discussion even really started, OK? You claim that my interpretation of this sentence is "at best confusing". But how would you describe your interpretation of the sentence according to which Holm describes the terrorist as "Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind" and at the same time as "Menschen"? At best contradictory?

You wrote: "Holm called the child killers "Menschen" ("humans") and by using the term "ihresgleichen" ("of their own kind") equates them with the hostages."

Again: Holm does not call the terrorists "Menschen" but "Menschen, die zu "intelligenten Waffen geworden sind". My point is this: my interpretation may not be without its semantic problems. But neither is yours. It was you , however, who made the claim that "The last sentence is difficult to bear. It can only mean that (...)" And it was you who turned this debatable interpretation into an conclusion and simplification worthy of Spiegel-Online: "FAZ: Terroristen sind menschlich"

You wrote: "Your interpretation of "ihresgleichen" as meaning the nationality is obviously wrong. Chechnians, Ossetians, Russians are not nationals "of their own kind" - not in the perception of these people themselves."

Please clarify: why do you think this is so obvious. Before you do, please consider my argument:

Quote Holm: "Die befreiten Geiseln sprechen von nur einem Maskierten und erwähnen arabische Terroristen nicht. Dafür "eigene" Leute, außer Tschetschenen auch Russen und einen Osseten. Die Überlebenden beschreiben das moderne Schlachtfeld: Menschen, die zu "intelligenten" Waffen geworden sind, inmitten der schutzlosen Schafherde von ihresgleichen."

nationality of the survivors="Ossetian, Russian"
nationality of the terrorists (according to the victims' statements)=(apart from the Chechens) Russian and one Ossetian .

Some Russians and Ossetians on both sides, therefore "ihresgleichen".

#4
You wrote: "Did Holm in fact provide a balanced view of the Beslan tragedy, with equal pluses and minuses for both sides? Is this a piece of investigative journalism in the best tradition of the German media? Let me know..."

Answer: of course not. What's your point? Anyway, if you would rather exchange rhetorical question, may I ask you this: Did you provide a balanced view of "Faz", with equal plusses and minusses for both sides? Is this a piece of investigative journalism in the best tradition of the German media? (Whatever that may be.) Have you met the journalistic standards you stipulate for the rest of the media? Let me know...

Regards

Note from David: No need to drag this on forever. You presented your point. I don't agree with you.

Sorry, this is way OT but it looks like potentially good news from Germany:

"Wir sind selbstverständlich bereit, Israel beim Erwerb zu helfen und unterstützen dies", meinte Struck im Interview mit dem Handelsblatt am Donnerstag. Politisch sei dies kein Problem, weil Israel die U-Boote im Küstenschutz einsetzen wolle, betonte Struck.

http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/18297/1.html

del.

Note from David: As I said, C - the discussion is over.

Sorry, David. I did not mean to be impolite.

By the way, I visit your blog from time to time and while I don't agree with every single posting here I do share your concern about the quality and bias of Germany's media. Although I may not always be happy with the style in which this is done, I am glad to hear others voice their concerns. So best wishes and good luck to you and your blog.

Regards

Abschied von den Tschetschenien-Klischees
Von Gisbert Mrozek, Moskau

"Alles, was wir bisher wissen, erlaubt es nicht mehr, die alten Tschetschenen-Interpretationen anzuwenden, die der deutschen und westeuropäischen Szene so lieb sind: Die Geschichte von dem edlen, wilden Bergvolk, dass erst von den Zaren, dann von Stalin und schliesslich Jelzin und Putin so gequält wurde, dass die Tschetschenen einfach nicht mehr anders können, als Terroristen zu werden, wenn Putin sie nicht schnellstens in die Unabhängigkeit entlässt.

Der Anführer der Geiselnehmer war ein Tschetschene, sein Vize ein Ingusche. Und dann waren da unter den 27 toten Kidnappern auch noch neun Araber und ein Afrikaner, sagen zumindest die russischen Behörden. Mit anderen Worten – das war keine Gruppe von edlen Wilden, die sich aus den Bergen auf den Weg machten, ihre toten Brüder und Schwestern zu rächen. Es war eine terroristische Interbrigade, denen der Moralkodex der Tschetschenen, der „Adat“ nichts galt."


"Drittens müsste die deutsche und westeuropäische Politik – Szene inklusive – gegenüber den Tschetschenen darauf beharren, dass sie auf den bewaffneten Kampf verzichten. Dass Terroraktionen und der bewaffnete Widerstand keine Perspektive haben. Europa sollte nach Kräften in Tschetschenien und in der tschetschenischen Emigration darauf hinwirken, dass dort ein Wertewechsel stattfindet. So schwer das auch ist, da eine ganze Generation vom Krieg erzogen wurde. Aber es wird Zeit, dass nicht mehr Kalaschnikow und Sprengstoffgürtel als die idealen Instrumente der nationalen Befreiung betrachtet werden, sondern Hochschulstudium und Computersoftware."

http://www.aktuell.ru/rusch0010/morenews.php?iditem=153

Artikel mit vielen Informationen und Analysen!

Wenn Terroristen keine Menschen sind, was, um Osamas willen, sind sie dann? Ein mißratenes evolutionäres Experiment? Unnütze Esser? Ungeziefer? Aliens?

Die Gutmenschen und Davids dieser Welt mögen ja ungläubig den Kopf schütteln, aber selbst Hitler, Mao und Jack the Ripper waren "ihresgleichen". Und auch George W. Bush stammt nicht vom Affen ab, wie Anti-Bushianer uns hartnäckig weismachen wollen, sondern wurde nachgewiesenermaßen von einer Menschin zur Welt gebracht.

Und wenn eine Beslaner Mutter von den Mördern ihres Kindes behauptet, "Das sind keine Menschen!", dann muß man, damit keine falschen Hoffnungen aufkommen, leider konstatieren: Irren ist menschlich.

Da ich nicht gern anonym veröffentliche, ein Nachtrag zum Posting von 08:24 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

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
28