« 9/11 - We will not Forget! | Main | A Message to the World of Biased Media »

Comments

Well, for lack of a sophisticated response to a totally moronic idea:

You have to be fucking kidding me.

Two points:
1) Whoever wrote that has just resigned from the human race. If I were in his family I wouldn't need al-Qaeda, I'd already be terrified.

2)Negotiations--Wasn't there someone named Chamberlain who negotiated with Hitlers political organization? Doesn't that fit into history somewhere?

Yes, I believe it fits in just before the part where Hitler stopped negotiating.

I scanned through that mess and saw a lot of "blah, blah, blah", does he mention specific items that can be negotiated with say, al qaeda? Howbout, if they promise to stop attacking infidel pigdogs, Israel will be allowed to be pushed into the sea and in its place a righteous nuclear capable Islamic republic? What kind of negotiations is that socialist momo talking about?

But people, please remember:

"Peace above all, even above Justice"

You can't harm terrorists! Thats WRONG. PEACE FOREVER!!!!!

/sarcasm

Ok, let's try this.

Would anyone consider 'negotiating' with the Ku Klux Klan? On its face, Islam is evil. On its face Islam denies fundamental human rights to women.
When these people don burkas ala Yvonne What's her name, I'll pay attention.

I think the action of Hamas described here (emphasis mine)...

"Pape examines in more detail the course of two Israeli withdrawal movements in 1994 and 1995 in relation to which Israeli concessions after Hamas attacks had a positive effect and Hamas subsequently – at least for a longish period – halted its attacks."

...is explained here (emphasis mine)...

"It would constitute an equally significant obstacle if the terrorists’ demands were totally unrealistic: for example, the establishment of a world caliphate. (...) Fortunately, the nature of Al-Qaeda’s goals is to a large extent political and concrete."

It may be correct that some terrorist groups will take their "totally unrealistic" demands and put them on the back-burner to negotiate some shorter-term concrete political demand. But those unrealistic demands (destruction of Israel, worldwide caliphate, etc.) do not seem to ever go away; and after a period of time ("longish" or not) basking in their limited success, the terrorists may then move those "totally unrealistic" demands to the front-burner and pick up where they left off.

Always the same mode of thinking with these people: Not the terrorists are to blame, but the United States and there allies, who are so unbelievably superior that the poor old terrorists simply have no other means but suicide bombing to advance their goals.

Dauerstaedt is a complete nutter. A hopeless case. But you can meet these sort of people quite regularly in German political "science", unfortunately.

September 11th, 2004

Today is the third anniversary of September 11th. In Munich there was a memorial ceremony commemorating the Beslan school massacre and the attacks on America and elsewhere. The event was organized by the Center for Russian culture in Munich. Russian Ambassador, Karacheutsev spoke about the level of terror all around the world today. Other featured speakers were the American Ambassador to Germany, Matthew M. Rooney, several Russian orthodox clergy, one from Siberia and a leader of the Moslem community in Munich.

There were about 150 people, mostly from the Russian community, assembled in front of the Feldherrnhalle. Many were holding candles and listening to the speeches from clergy and officials. Early speakers discussed the September 11th attacks and related them to the world wide scourge of terrorism and especially the murder of the innocent children in Beslan last week.

When the Moslem leader spoke, he quickly politicized the speech by criticizing “those who use torture and humiliation also are guilty of terrorism”, an obvious jab at the US and “You can be lucky that nothing like that (Beslan) has not happened here (in Munich) yet”. His speech was then concluded with a prayer, Surah 1, in Arabic, to the assembled crowd of Russians and Germans. Also present were relatives of the victims of the Beslan massacre. One German lady commented that she did not like the tone or content of his speech.

The Russian Orthodox clergy then went up and spoke about terrorism and even identified it. Terrorism is “sin” and it is in all of us. The Moslem community representative in his earlier speech wanted to stress that Munich Moslems are peaceful and are “extending their hand”. No mention of the word “Islam” was made by any speakers.

The conclusion of the memorial service was marked by a beautiful prayer session which lasted about 15 minutes. The beautiful Russian prayers (sung and spoken in German, not Arabic, for all to understand) were sublime and very touching.

The beauty of the prayer sung alternately by the orthodox clergyman from Siberia and 2 women with beautiful soprano voices, resonated from the monument to the German war dead (where Hitler often spoke from in his rise to dictator), with great beauty and solemn sincerity.

Andrew2

http://www.mir-ev.de/ (Russian center in Munich)

Note from David: Andrew, thank your for this interesting report.

This comes from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think tank, closely connected with the SPD.
I'm puzzled by finding the label "think tank" applied to this Foundation.
The SPD is not quite a fringe political party in Germany. Will I eventually have to believe that this type of thinking (I'd rather call it perversion of thought) is prevailing within the SPD?
A frightening idea.

Bild befragt Außenminister Fischer:

Frage: Als Reaktion kündigt Russlands Geheimdienstchef Vernichtungsschläge gegen Terroristen in aller Welt an. Wird die internationale Politik zum Wilden Westen?

Fischer: Im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus dürfen wir niemals unsere Grundwerte in Frage stellen. Das wäre ein Triumph der Terroristen. Zu diesen Grundwerten gehört die Beachtung des Völkerrechts. Wir verteidigen die Freiheit, die Herrschaft des Rechts und der Menschenwürde. Eine friedliche Welt wird nur auf dieser Grundlage möglich sein.

----------------------------------------------

Triumph der Terroristen ist ja gerade das Völkerrecht, wie es zur Zeit existiert. Wieviele Menschen mußten schon sterben, weil das Recht sie nicht schützen konnte? Die Terroristen lachen sich über diese Leute wie Fischer tot, die an erste Stelle das existierende Recht stellen und die anprangern, die es nicht beachten und ändern wollen. Die Terroristen lachen über Fischer und Konsorten, sie fürchten nur Bush. Mit lächerlichen Videobotschaften droht man den USA wie bockige Kinder, die sich in einer Gang zusammengeschlossen haben. Nur Angsthasen denken wie Fischer und verstecken sich hinter Floskeln und Phrasen und Parolen. Bush zeigt keine Angst, gegen den Terror anzutreten. Unsere Werte, unsere Grundwerte sind doch nicht unser Recht, wie es zur Zeit ist. Unsere Grundwerte sind unser Vermögen, gegen das Unrecht in der Welt aufzustehen und die Welt so zugestalten, daß das Unrecht kleingehalten wird. Wenn das Recht den Terroristen hilft, muß man es ändern. Das ist doch keine Schwäche, das ist unsere Stärke. Diese Angst vor Änderungen ist unsere Schwäche.

Dieses ängstliche Beschwörungen, daß wir in Richtung Hitler marschieren. Meine Güte, wo denn? Wenn wir nichts tun und uns an das Bestehende klammern und uns lächerlich machen in unserer Angst, dann helfen wir denen, die wie Hitler agieren: den Terroristen.

Es muß endlich diskutiert werden, wie wir effektiv Menschen bekämpfen, die die Welt zerstören wollen.

Herrschaft des Rechts ist ja gut und schön. Es bedeutet aber nicht, daß das Recht so bleiben muß, wie es ist. Recht entwickelt sich. Wir haben es schon tausendfach geändert, und der Himmel ist nicht eingestürzt. Terroristen sollen weltweit gejagd werden und international. Traumhaft. Fangen wir an. Unterstützen wir Putin. Keine Angst vor Terroristen. Gemeinsam sind wir stark.

Das Recht ist unsere Waffe, aber nur wenn sie scharf ist. Mit stumpfen Messern läßt sich nichts schneiden.

Das ist ein Ruf nach effektivem Recht, nicht nach Anarchie.

Lassen wir doch mal endlich unsere Terrorexperten sprechen und nicht Lüders und Konsorten.

Die Terroristen würden doch nicht triumphieren, wenn wir unser Recht effektiver gestalten, sie würden endlich anfangen, uns zu fürchten ob unseres Mutes. sie müßten sich alle in Löchern verstecken, statt hier frei herumzulaufen und Urlaub in Afghanistan zu machen, ach nein, Afghanistan-Trips wurden abgesagt, davor hat Bush gesorgt. Wohin gehen sie jetzt? Ich hoffe, Putin spürt sie auf. Davor habe ich doch keine Angst. Darauf freue ich mich.

Herrschaft des Rechts, nur wenn es funktioniert.

Wenn sich die Zeiten ändern, so wie es jetzt mit dem neuen Terror geschehen ist, müssen wir das Recht darauf einstellen. Recht ist Menschenwerk, dem Wandel unterworfen. Unrechtes Recht ist zu ändern.


Well, babies, don't you worry! I have found our new "Fuehreress". Negotiations? Rationality? Politics? Bah, that's for wimps and wusses! What the world really needs is - yes, you guessed right - new "concentration camp[s]". Read all about the new final solution here.

“You can be lucky that nothing like that (Beslan) has not happened here (in Munich) yet”

That is no promise. That is a threat.

So why don't the "sophisticated intellectuals" try negotiating with Bush? After all, isn't he supposed to be the ultimate terrorist, the new Hitler.

DON

That is a verbatum quote. I am trying to get his name to post in a follow up. I do hope it is reported in the Munich papers.

Andrew2

That was an excellent post. Thank you. Please keep us updated.

For the anonymous poster above me (about f posts I think, who is yipping about concentration camps. From the link you provided:

Anyone who chooses Islam is to be considered a threat to this country and put in confinement. Call it a concentration camp. Guantanomo Bay is more comfortable than Afghanistan

Sounds pretty horrifying doesn't it?
Well, not if you are a woman. Islam treats women as chattel. In the immortal words of Steyn, their "heaven is a brothel" and I am just a portable, fuckable, reproductive entity.

I can round 'em up or I can kill 'em. Frankly killing them is alot cheaper.

Wem es noch nicht aufgefallen sein sollte: Europäische Länder sind gerade deshalb so scharf auf "Dialog der Kulturen", "Gesprächsbereitschaft" und "Toleranz ausüben", weil sie sich anders nicht zu helfen wissen. Nichts, dass ich etwas dagegen hätte, nur ab einem bestimmten Punkt ist eine solche Strategie nur noch zum Scheitern verurteilt. Sie sagen, der Krieg gegen den Terrorismus darf "nicht nur alleine mit militärischen Mitteln" geführt werden - eine typische Sprachschleife von Terroristenverstehern. Wer das so oft betont, muss es auch wirklich nötig haben. Alles, was Amerika macht, ist falsch, doch wie es anders gehen könnte, das bleibt das große Mysterium. Sie meinen es nur gut, wissen aber nicht, was sie tun - ein Verhalten, welches besonders häufig bei Autisten anzutreffen ist.

It isn't an option to be forgone, if you have NO NOTION OF PARAMETERS, and become COMPLICIT in making mass murder into an instant ticket to the political legitimacy.

Terror is a way a handful of people, (ones not even representing enough of a majority to have a political movement,) to force themselves on the rest of society.

These 'social justice truth constructors' need to get a grip on something other than their own little pet peeves, and their hatred of civilization. What doesn't seem to register to leftist is that Al-Qa'ada hates us as much because of our LEFTIST policies as anything else. That IS their 'root cause' issue!

Help me with my totally inadequate German please.

Sprachschleife?

Ich denke, das Wort "Sprachschleife" ist eine Wortschöpfung, um wiederkehrende Phrasen und Parolen zu bezeichnen. Ich habe es vorher noch nie gehört.

Circumloqution, I think we call it.....

Got it. Thhanks.

Recommended reading: "Why terrorism works" by Alan M. Dershowitz, Yale University Press 2002. For a better understanding of the role of socialist "think tanks".

Leitartikel:
Präventivkrieg: Die Welt auf dem Weg zur Anarchie

VON BURKHARD BISCHOF (Die Presse) 10.09.2004

http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=p&ressort=pk&id=442030
--------------------------------------------


Wenn unsere Journalisten "präventiv" oder "preemptiv" hören (den Unterschied kennen sie sicher nicht), beschwören sie hysterisch die Angst vor Anarchie.

Da trainieren 20.000 oder 40.000 Idioten-Männer in Afghanistan, wie man Menschen tötet und Herr Bischof (Österreich) sorgt sich ums Recht, wenn man diese Terrorlager bombadiert.

Anarchie wird kommen, wenn man diese Terroristen gewähren läßt. Sie werden eines Tages in der Lage sein, mittels Massenvernichtungswaffen ganze Städte auszurotten. Das gilt es zu verhindern.

Sie fürchten sich nicht vor dem Tod, deshalb fürchten sie auch nicht den Umgang mit Massenvernichtungswaffen.

Sagt nicht jeder Terrorexperte, es sei nur eine Frage der Zeit und des Ortes?

Angesichts dessen Anarchie mehr als Terroristen zu fürchten, ist lachhaft.

Ich fürchte Anarchie viel weniger als Terroristen.



There are several problems with the negotiation issue at hand:
a) you can only negotiate, if all participants agree to follow the same rules of negotiation
b) negotiation is only possible, if all particpants are willing to find a compromise and stick to it.

Both point obviously do not work with terrorists. They do not play by any rules acceptable to civilized democratic nations and they do not want to compromise. Hence each and every negotiation means, one side gives in while the other triumphantly draws the screws a little bit tighter in order to see, what else you can squeeze out of your counterpart. And once he does not give in freely anymore, you use force. All this has been demonstrated by Chamberlain vs. Hitler ad nauseam.

You can not be tolerant towards intolerance. You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Period.


@pat

You really seem to have come full-circle on this whole terrorism thing.

Several weeks ago, you were (ad nasueam), quoting sources that the USA and her allies were confident that they would [still] find WMD in Iraq. Alas, insufficient amounts have been found to grant the USA and her allies reprieve from a schadenfreude German media.

Iraq financed terrorism. He had built WMD in the past although denied it. Why, therefore, did/does Germany find it necessary to promote the "political" solution as the honorable Hr. Fischer claims?

mfG
James

Triumph der Terroristen ist ja gerade das Völkerrecht, wie es zur Zeit existiert. Wieviele Menschen mußten schon sterben, weil das Recht sie nicht schützen konnte? Die Terroristen lachen sich über diese Leute wie Fischer tot, die an erste Stelle das existierende Recht stellen und die anprangern, die es nicht beachten und ändern wollen. Die Terroristen lachen über Fischer und Konsorten, sie fürchten nur Bush. Mit lächerlichen Videobotschaften droht man den USA wie bockige Kinder, die sich in einer Gang zusammengeschlossen haben. Nur Angsthasen denken wie Fischer und verstecken sich hinter Floskeln und Phrasen und Parolen. (Gabi)

Woher wissen Sie, dass die Terroristen "nur Bush" fürchten? Eine Umfrage? Fürchten die Terroristen eigentlich auch Blair?
Spaß beiseite: Ich habe das sichere Gefühl, dass die Terroristen weder Bush noch Fischer fürchten. Es ist aber auch egal, ob sie uns fürchten, solange sie uns nicht töten. Und deshalb sollte man beim Thema Terrorbekämpfung vielleicht doch einmal tun, was sich die meisten Menschen in anderen Politikfeldern weigern zu tun: Emotionalität abschalten und einen kühlen Kopf bewahren.
Sind unsere westlichen Rechtssysteme gut? Ja. Sollte man gewalttätige Lösungen vermeiden, wenn man kann? Ja. Dass man diese beiden Dinge und jegliche Vernunft in der Anti-Terror-Diskussion so gerne suspendiert, hängt vor allem mit einem zusammen: Angst. Nur Angsthasen denken wie Fischer? Nein, diejenigen, die den Mut haben, unsere Zivillisation wirklich zu verteidigen, denken wie Fischer.
Sie weichen dem aus, indem sie schreiben:

Unsere Werte, unsere Grundwerte sind doch nicht unser Recht, wie es zur Zeit ist. Unsere Grundwerte sind unser Vermögen, gegen das Unrecht in der Welt aufzustehen und die Welt so zugestalten, daß das Unrecht kleingehalten wird. Wenn das Recht den Terroristen hilft, muß man es ändern. Das ist doch keine Schwäche, das ist unsere Stärke. Diese Angst vor Änderungen ist unsere Schwäche. [...]
Herrschaft des Rechts ist ja gut und schön. Es bedeutet aber nicht, daß das Recht so bleiben muß, wie es ist. Recht entwickelt sich. Wir haben es schon tausendfach geändert, und der Himmel ist nicht eingestürzt. Terroristen sollen weltweit gejagd werden und international. Traumhaft. Fangen wir an. Unterstützen wir Putin. Keine Angst vor Terroristen. Gemeinsam sind wir stark.
Das Recht ist unsere Waffe, aber nur wenn sie scharf ist. Mit stumpfen Messern läßt sich nichts schneiden.
Das ist ein Ruf nach effektivem Recht, nicht nach Anarchie.

Alles schön und gut, das Problem ist nur, dass unter "effektivem Recht" dann meist ein Recht verstanden wird, das keines mehr ist. Für das bestehende Recht gibt es meist Gründe, und die sind häufig nicht einmal so falsch. Das Völkerrecht wurde nicht ins Leben gerufen, um den USA oder Russland das Recht zur Selbstverteidigung zu nehmen. Vielleicht ist es klug, sich nicht völlig mutwillig darüber hinwegzusetzen (ich spreche, wohlgemerkt, nicht von Verstößen gegen die Regeln zu denen man eindeutig gezwungen ist). Demokratie bedeutet eben nicht nur Herrschaft des Volkes, sie bedeutet auch Kontrolle der Macht.
Was ihren Aufruf zur Unterstützung Putins betrifft: Was genau wollen sie eigentlich unterstützen? Putins Tschetschenien-Politik? Seine Auffassung zum Irakkrieg? (Den er nach wie vor als völkerrrechtswidrig kritisiert?) Seine Handhabung (oder die der russischen Behörden) von Geiseldramen wie Beslan?

Ein typischer Leserbrief im aktuellen SPIEGEL:

"Wenn man ein Volk, egal ob Araber, Iraker oder Tschetschenen längere Zeit als letzten Dreck behandelt, darf man sich nicht wundern, wenn die getretene Volksseele explodiert und wild um sich schlägt, schießt oder bombt. Wer eigentlch der Terrorist war, legt hinterher der Sieger fest."

Dr. Karl Reissmann - Mittweida (Sachsen)

No, these guys of the Ebert Foundation are not just naïve idiots. At least some of them must be very clever and insidious fifth column leftists. Is this just a small extreme-left faction within the SPD? In that case one wonders why this faction is tolerated within the SPD, or why the SPD didn't cut completely its ties with this Foundation. Or is it main-stream SPD? Unbelievable.

@ James: while I don't see myself at the end of a circle, I can not help to agree that some of the arguments I have read and discussed on this and other blogs have of course sharpened my mind in reference to the issue of terrorism and Islamo-fascism. I am not to proud to keep on learning and aliening my thoughts and ideas to new facts, if they are convincing.

However, my original critic (written here, as you stated "ad nauseam") still is valid: while there was good reason for the war on Iraq, the publicly given reasons were mostly bogus, based on false and frauded material. I still don't see that WMD have been the major issue at hand and I understand that it was only used in order to try to convince a broader public of the rightfullness of the war. But that does not make me weak against terrorism and fascist movements like fanatic Islamism.

You see, I love my place between all chairs and intend to stay positioned there.

Cheerio from newborn Old Europe

@pat,

You definately must have been a politician.

..."mostly bogus, based on false and frauded material."

Well, the BND believed it as well! Those that deny/forget that fact belong similarily feel that Germany itself was a victim of WWII, that communism was a just but falsly implemented system, the CIA really attacked the World Trade center, jews really control America, etc...

As I had mentioned to you in the past (Bosnia), I don't expect Germany EVER to take ANY action against ANY information, regardless of it's reliability or source. The US was attacked on Sept 11 in the most arrogant and contemptuous means available to the terrorists: our freedom. Given this, one could easy fathom mushroom clouds over NYC, Boston or Savanagh. Contrary to conventional German thinking: history demonstrates that America responds when attacked: Havana Harbor, The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor and now Sept 11.

The wirlwind of loony German conspiricy theorists, rising counts of communists and neo-Nazis, the self-righteous German middle and Michael Moore finatics has me in dispair when I think of Germany, particularily when it comes with a common vision on fighting terror.

Frankly Pat, I'm glad to hear that you (a German) make such black/white statements like : "You cannot negotiate with terrorists. Period." It reminds me of what President Bush has said: "You're either with us or with the terrorists."

But, as far as fighting the terrorists, and also defending our common western civilisation, I don't think that you find many Germans who truly share in America's and her allies stand against it. For Germany to make the only significant step in fighting terror, or anything for that matter (Bosnia), it would require her to deploy troops beyond her boarders, maybe even die in action (this hasn't happed yet). Given the predictable spastic response you get from any typical German concerning this matter (i.e. WWII, etc), I frankly don't think that it is in the country's characture to do so. I just don't think that the country is "capable" of confronting the ghosts of the past to do so (therefore, I think it is appropriate to discuss the issue of Nazism and how it influences Germany today). Germany would prefer to continue to enjoy the luxury of allowing America to provide for it's safety and serving as the scapegoat on every issue.

Germany has yet to learn that freedoms are fought for, won and defended.

@ James: I could not agree more with your very last phrase! This is exactly one major problem I can see myself. The bigger German majority from the west has never fought for her freedom nor won it. It was given (or pressed upon) by the Allies after a lost war. While there was a threeat to loose it all during the cold war, and while there was a sense of fighting for freedom among some/many (frankly: I don't know), it was still clear that German forces would play a minor in the big battle and facing possible distruction in mushromclouds, a number of Germans may have believed in "lieber rot als tot". The East-Germans can be proud to be the first successfull revolutionaries (and peaceful, mind you) in Germany since 1918. But as I could notice during my time from early 1990 unitil summer 1995, the decades of Socialism and Totalitarism have changed people a lot. The believe in the all-mighty state is deeply engraned their. But while mislead in their goal, the anti-Hartz-demonstrations at least show that their is still some fight in them for what they believe are their rights as Buerger.

Germany is still haunted by the ghost from the past and uncertain about its role in the 21st century. You are right about that too. While claiming a permanent seat in the UN-SC, it is not prepared to provide the means and forces to take over such a leading role. We are scarred to use our well-trained and well-equipped forces for the right purposes. That will change, I am sure of it. Especially as we have so many young officers and career soldiers now who have a new and modern view of their job and its requirements. The next necessarry step would be to abandon "Wehrpflicht" and concentrate the funds on a small but extremely well equipped force. Before we have that, I grant you that, we will not see Germany taking part in any major fights.

Finally: while I seem to piss you off every time I mention the, uhm, very weak evidence about those WMD in Iraq, I continue to stand my point: to many times have the US agencies like CIA come up with make-believe information and false evidence in the past. I mentioned several times the bombing of Sudan during the Clinton administration. One of the highest ranking providers of information about the Iraq is now, if I am not mistaken, in custody. As I said: I do not doubt that there was good reason to get rid of Saddam, but the reasons provided to public and allies were weak at best, false at worst.

And finally: yes, I have been a politician and proudly so. Hopefully in a couple of years I can run for the European parliament (after election reform) and work hard on harmonization of taxation etc.

Cheerio

You are also


@pat

Interesting how you deliberately ignore the point that your government agency, BND or Bundesnachrichtdienst which is similar to our CIA, ALSO agreed upon the intel. In fact, much of the intel came from Germany (you had shamelessly continued to sell to the despot Saddam).

Although we had limited intel on Saddam WMD prior to Gulf War I, later UN inspections and defection of Saddam loyalists proved he had capabilities and programs well beyond our imagination. These were discovered at a time that Saddam strongly denied their existence and "allies" like Germany, France, Russia and China were pushing for removal of the "harmful" sanctions. Time to make some business instead!

So the old proverb of : "lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me." I think was rightly applicable insofar as Saddam words had any true meaning. We need not worry about his words any longer, they only echo in a lonely prison cell.

You sycophantically provide hollow words surrounding the capabilities, desires, and intentions of the German military, people and government. Meanwhile there is a bonanza of polemic contempt abounding in the German media and common people. Don't tell me otherwise, I live it every day here in Münich. Let it be repeated, we have steadfastly fought for the world’s rights in defence of the meaning of freedom. It is decadent and inappropriate [for the many Germans] to hijack a word that they have never earned the true meaning of.

@ James: I just forgot to mention two historical tidbits:
Havana Harbor: while I am a big fan of Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders, it is until today disputed, who realy caused the explosion at the ship in the harbour. Or am I wrong?

Lusitania: While it was stupid to torpedo the ship, it did carry weapons and amunition for the British. Hence by rights of naval warfare it was the German's right to sink the ship - if I am not mistaken....

I do love historical dicussions like that


@pat,

Good to see that you've done some surfing in-between.

Tired of addressing the WMD issue?

read between the lines on that one...
Havana Harbor.. maybe the US caused the explosion for its own benefit.. sounds like the 9/11 conspirracy doesn't it? speculation...

or the Luisitania... YOU HAD IT COMING...

two typical phrases I have heard alot here repackaged...

To Pat and James:

If you wish to read a quick, very objective history of the sinking of USS Maine in February, 1898, including possible causes, I'd suggest consulting the US Navy's history of battleships,
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/battleships/maine/maine.html. The Navy accurately states the relationship of the sinking of Maine and the reasons for the US declaring war on Spain:

The destruction of Maine did not cause the U.S. to declare war on Spain, but it served as a catalyst, accelerating the approach to a diplomatic impasse. In addition, the sinking and deaths of U.S. sailors rallied American opinion more strongly behind armed intervention.

The sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May, 1915, a British flag ship aboard which 128 US citizens perished, did not lead to the US entering the Great War. It did cause a shift in American opinion. Prior to the Lusitania's sinking, there was no prevailing sentiment within the US as to the war. The Lusitania's sinking confirmed to the majority of Americans that German militarism was a significant threat to America. The specific causes for America's entry into the war in April, 1917, were a) Germany's announcement of resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (which she had renounced after the Lusitania sinking) and b) the disclosure of the Zimmermann telegram, where Germany promised to see that Mexico would receive Texas, New Mexico and Arizona if Mexico would declare war on the US (a rather typical example of the German diplomatic style and effectiveness that prevails to this day, in my opinion). President Wilson's request to Congress for a declaration of war against Germany is as good an explanation as any of why America entered the war (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/usawardeclaration.htm).

I think the point here is that when enough innocent American lives are taken, the US will respond with great force. That is the only moral and proper position for any nation to take, in my view, although there is no question that the majority of Germans believe otherwise.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&ncid=742&e=1&u=/nypost/20040908/cm_nypost/russias911

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?" [Putin] asked derisively at a press conference.

@ James: I never grow tired about discussing the WMD, but currently my professional live is in a lot of turmoil (shitstorm would be a better decription thanks to the shitty economy around me/us). Hope I can resume that soon.

@ anonymus: sad that you did not leave a name. Thanks for the great historical background info. I'll check it out, because it sounds interesting.

Back to work and hopefully some rest and fun during the weekend.......

Cheerio

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