« Despicable Exploitation of a Fallen Marine's Funeral | Main | What Did Kiesinger Do Wrong? »


Of course - because throwing the Iraqi's to the wolves ( aka the "insurgents" chopping heads off ) would indeed spare Germany for a few more months or years

I am glad this person at least says it like it is

I don't mind that people are against war, or the war in Iraq. However, don't oppose the war in Iraq because doing so will somehow prevent terrorism at home--because it won't do that. Spain, for instance, is still having to track down jihadi terrorist cells, even though they pulled out of Iraq a year ago. France, Norway and Sweden are having to track their muslim communities more closely, and they aren't in Iraq.

I will say this about Iraq. Yes, it probably adds a little more motivation to those who want to dislike the "Zionist Crusaders". But the fact is, the jihadi set will always be able to stir up resentment against the west. 9/11 and the attacks prior to that were (supposedly) motivated by the U.S. having troops in Saudi Arabia, policies towards Israel and U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. Never mine that at the time, the U.S. was working pretty much flat out to make the Oslo peace process work in Israel. Now of course, the U.S. has removed its troops from Saudi Arabia and is forcefully backing greater democracy in the Middle East--yet the attacks still continue.

In fact, the jihadis now use western involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as their justification. Well, both of those countries want our troops there. Why do they want them there? Because the jihadis are intent on attacking these countries and replacing their governments with Islamist regimes.

If all of the above "sins" of the U.S./West were solved, there would still be violence. In reality, the violence is driven by hard-line muslim desire to create a "caliphate" that would encompass all Muslim populations, and many areas of southern Europe, India and Asia that were once Muslim, but were conquered or reconquered by other religious and ethnic groups.

Then there is the issue of concern about "decadent" western culture polluting Islam. Many islamists in reality want to force not only their religion, but their fundamentalist interpretation of that religion, on the non-believers.

Then there is the economic resentment angle. Many muslims resent that their religion, which they believe is the true and ultimate revealed religion, promises prosperity and justice to the faithful as long as they follow the tenets of the religion. Well, they have followed the tenets, but they have been far surpassed by the west, and increasingly Asia and India. So, they feel that the west must be cheating them, or using some kind of evil powers, to accomplish this. Rather than question their own religion and behavior, they put their lack of success off on others.

@ Steve

Interesting statement.
It leads to the conclusion that the inhabitants of those muslim countries need a lot more time to develop their understanding.

Thats why a quick regime change wont do the trick. Things should be done the european way of the 19th century - those arabian countries needed guidance back then and we colonized those lands. Today they still need guidance, but they dont receive any.
By allowing their local warlords to oppress their own people, we arent doing them a favor.

But the US made a big mistake when removing that iraqi dictator: While european colonists never promised "democracy" or human rights to the colonies, the americans did. So Europe could keep up with the expectations by creating an infrastructure and securing public order (which is a great achievement in such regions), while america teared the old order apart - and see what happens..

Big surprise that everything breaks to pieces.

So you only have this choice when dealing with very religious regions:
Leave them alone completely or subordinate them. If you promise them the same rights than to enlightened people, its too much for them to understand and thus chaos erupts.

Iraq is breaking to pieces?

Of course, some have theorized it should. It's an artificial country, isn't it?

Another brilliant idea of Mother's we have to fix?


So yuu were OK with Saddam feeding inocent Iraqi people throught industrial shreeders and his mass graves? Man you TRANZIs are really messed up, you can rationalize anything. As long as teh US is wrong and everyone else is right, all the time you TRANZIs are all for it.

@ Niko

Comparing germans (-> bavarians) to those iraqis doesnt work, since the age of enlightenment already took place here 200 years ago.
You might head to a bavarian market place and try to recruit some christians for a holy war. At least you should do so, if you enjoy earning a good laugh!

I m not that sure about american market places though ;)

@zyme: "If you promise them the same rights than to enlightened people, its too much for them to understand and thus chaos erupts."


@Bush: "There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken."

He really has your number doesn't he?

Stroebele is such a delusional dreamer, it's amazing. Why not call for a withdrawal of the Bundeswehr out of Afghanistan, Herr Stroebele? After all, isn't that part of the "crusade", too? Wheren't we threatened because of that, too? Let all the little Warlords and Taliban have it their way, mutilating the genitals of little children, stoning women to death, marrying 9 year old kids, shooting anybody who's singing or listening to music?

Unbelievable. This Kulturmarxist is a disgrace.

Once The Iraq War is ended (meaning the US and the iraqi government surrendering to a handful of terrorists), terrorists will indeed demand Germany pulls out of Afghanistan. Then, they will demand women in Germany wear a veil (remember France?). Once that's accomplished, they will demand money, food and armaments be delivered to them in exchange for "safety". And so it will go on with this appeasement, until finally Germany is asked to surrender.
This Ströbele is either completely nuts or has the IQ of a 5 year old. Either way, lock this retard up. He is a threat to german society.

Perhaps Stroebele should consider Europe as the "breeding ground for more and more terrorist attacks". Seems the London bombers were native born or the children of asylum seekers. Far be it for Greens to let facts get in the way of their fantasies. You smoke enough kind-bud and what those garden gnomes tell ya starts to make sense.

The time is ripe for the dhimmi-witted lefties to form human-shields to protect passengers. Certainly the Islamofascist rath will passover the Greens. Kumbaya, Kumbaya.

Actually, if this is the feeling of the Green party then why not declare Germany an open ally of the terrorists. They then could declare war on the US.

That surely is a way for Germany to attempt to end the war. They are doing nothing right now to end it.

This action should probably wait until Germany becomes a member of the UNSC. This would then allow them to declare the US a rogue nation. In fact, maybe Germany could lead the world against the US.

Now that is a plan if there ever was one. Germany at the center of the world stage. Social justice for all!

I am confused Egypt supported or is involved in the War in Iraq?

"It would be absurd to blame the current surge of terrorist attacks on the internet. Yet there is no doubt that the marriage of modern technology and malevolent medievalism has expedited the spread of hateful and hysterical propaganda wherever governments have not acted forcefully against the propagandists. Open societies must find ways of modulating public discourse without losing the openness that defines them. And there must be a clearer understanding that there will always be new causes for these extremists: the emancipation of women; the West’s acceptance of homosexuality; the very existence of moderate Muslims, in Iraq and here, who are, in their moderation, “apostates”."


The Western world did not react when the Palestinians started their terror by suicide bombers. They "understand" it like Ken Livingston did and so many others. The terrorists could watch how cowardly the world reacted (better: not reacted) in front of the use of terror. They were amazed by the split between Germany, France and the US. They felt encouraged. I think they laughed about Germany and the German "peace" chancellor. They laughed about the ignorance and arrogance of so many Germans who demonized the US instead of the terrorists. It takes time to understand terror. I hope Germany won't be too late but I have little hope when I watch German media and politicians how they ignore Palestinian terror. Their fear is still immense to call this culture of hatred what it is: terror.

"Wenn wir intolerant werden, siegt der Terror"
Experte für Anschlagsfolgen rät zu normalem Alltag und warnt vor gefährlichen Konsequenzen für die Demokratie
von Heike Jänz"

Again such a nonsense about terror. The Palestinian terrorists want to KILL as many Israelis as possible. The 9/11 terrorists wanted to kill as many people as possible. Bali, Madrid, London... terrorists want to kill because they hate us and our societies. They don't want to change us into intolerant people. They want us to believe their BS. Be a terrorist, than you are save. Up to the next suicide bombing. So better to become a leader of this BS. Then you can send other idiots.

The leaders of these terror groups want the power. They send other people. And these people believe that it is all because of Afghanistan and Iraq and whatever. They are the naive idiots who are manipulated so much that they kill themselves (and others of course). And people like Ströbele who also believe that it is all because of any poltics help them recruiting and killing themselves. They help to spread the propaganda of the terrorist leaders.

The way out of terror is to reveal their propaganda as what it is.


Mark Steyn - Worth to read.

"Bomb us, and we agonise over the "root causes" (that is, what we did wrong). Decapitate us, and our politicians rush to the nearest mosque to declare that "Islam is a religion of peace". Issue bloodcurdling calls at Friday prayers to kill all the Jews and infidels, and we fret that it may cause a backlash against Muslims. Behead sodomites and mutilate female genitalia, and gay groups and feminist groups can't wait to march alongside you denouncing Bush, Blair and Howard. Murder a schoolful of children, and our scholars explain that to the "vast majority" of Muslims "jihad" is a harmless concept meaning "decaf latte with skimmed milk and cinnamon sprinkles"."

where's the source for this crap?


when i read your posts i always think that people like you are the reason why this conlfict between israel and the palestinians will never end.

As long as people have this black or white view ( it does not matter which site they choose).

Neither israel or the palestinians are only poor people and victims of the other site.

Israel will never get peace if it continues the present policy but neither will the palestinians get their state and a better live without addressing their internal problems. Israel changed from a nation that defendes itself against the aggresion of its neighbors into a supressing occupation force in the last decades.

I belive a lot of palestinians and israleies will have to die until they see that to leave some villages in the dessert is a small price for peace and to stop suicide attacks and any terrorrist action is the best way to get thier own state.

@ Gert

another dovout adherer to the great blind belief of everlasting greyness.



the palestinians were offered a state twice.. once in 1948 and once in 2001.
both times they responded with war.
look at the Kurds in Iraq.. how many times have the Kurds been offered an independent state?
yet they LOVE their 'occupiers'. The Kurds are one of the few pro American people on the earth, even though America 'occupies' them.
hello! the arabs waged war three times against Israel and lost all three times.. Breslau is lost forever to Germany, but you never hear about the Polish occupiers.. if you lose a war, you lose.. period.. get over it.
until 67 Gaza was controlled by Egypt and Jordan. NOBODY cared about a Palestinian state THEN.
Israel is TRYING to work in good faith .. can't say that for Arafat

you know what is black and white thinking? The occupation - terror - myth. It is hard to believe for people, that there are other people who just love to blow up babies because they are Jewish. It might help you, Gert, to think terror is good against occupation. People like you are helping the terror. That is why we still have terror and people who use it because they are successful. You are supporting them. Think about it.

Think about it why you think it might be right to kill by terror.

There will never be an end to terror when we don't stop it together. Don't you agree with me: There is never a reason to use terror?

They want land? Why didn't they take it. It was not enough? And? is it a reason to use terror in your eyes?


Yeah, there are other people who just love to blow up people because they are American or even *friends* of Americans.

Thats true and we here in Germany love this guys. Fortunately they are comming out now of every corner.

I am an American who lives and works in Germany..I would like to present a hypothetical situation..
I go to Rostock as a tourist. I walk into the wrong neighborhood. Unemployed Germans there start to talk to me. They find out I work in Germany. Some of them, skinheads, beat me up and kill me. They resent the fact that I am stealing work from them (so they think).
Gert, what would your reaction to that be? Most Germans would condemn that behavior loudly. But the unemployed German is frustrated after all he thinks I am the source of his problems. Was his behavior correct? No? then why are Palestinian bombers 'justified'?
Don't they kill innocent people because they are 'frustrated'?

Bush nailed it with a great term.. the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Gert you are a BIGOT! Not holding Palestinians to a standard that you yourself hold to.

Again, Ray D: Are you posting lies now? Where's the source?

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict:


Gert, read it and understand the facts. It takes some time to understand more than black and white and have better answers than these easy answers like you.

I think some commenters should re-evaluate Gert's statement (and perhaps consider apologizing). Gert states, in fact, that black and white views of the matter are counterproductive, i.e. such views prolong the violence. Furthermore, Gerd also says that pullouts from Israeli settlements AND cessation of suicide attacks and other terrorist activity are pre-requisites for a solution.

Ironic, but Gert's reasoning is pretty consistent with the Bush administration's line on the issue.

It seems that the flash point in Gert's comment is his choice of the phrase 'suppressing occupation force'. I agree that the phrase is harsh, but based on the military evolution of Israel's presence in Gaza and the West Bank, 'occupation' isn't inaccurate.

I'd guess that English isn't Gerd's native language. Maybe the phrase is stronger than he intended. (Gert, apologies if I'm misrepresenting you.)

However, from Gabi's choice of instructional site that she condescendingly links to, we learn the following:

"Two prominent terrorists, Begin and Shamir, even went on to become Israeli Prime Ministers," and, "In many ways the Palestinian cause was a just one."

Based on the attacks on Gert, this kind of evenhandedness would be regarded as heresy by several commentors upstream (despite the rest of the article's clear contention that the Palestinians specifically and the Arab world more broadly have precipitated the current situation).

Sad that Gerd's attempt to insert a reasoned opinion is jumped on like a housebreaker.



"Israel will never get peace if it continues the present policy..."

Which policy? Be specific. You mean their policy of continuing to exist?

"but neither will the palestinians get their state and a better live without addressing their internal problems. "

They are never going to do it, because the very cornerstone of their culture is that all of their problems are someone else's doing. They are the ultimate spoiled brats. The only hope for them, and it's a very slim hope, is complete and total cultural upheaval. Until and unless that happens, they are too dangerous to be allowed to interact with the rest of the world.

"Israel changed from a nation that defendes itself against the aggresion of its neighbors into a supressing occupation force in the last decades."

When did that happen? Israel has been under attack pretty much since the moment of its creation. What lands is Israel occupying? What should they give back? (And if you say "Jerusalem", I am going to teleport my arm and hand through the Internet and slap you silly.)

Don't forget, Clinton offered the Palis 99% of what they wanted, and more, in the Oslo deal. Arafat turned it down cold.

@Dan Kauffman:

Egypt is playing its own game. It very much wants the Islamists to do harm to America, but at the same time, it doesn't want said Islamists posing a threat to Egypt's government. Given the Islamist policy of pretty much bombing indiscriminately wherever it can find a soft target, and the fact that the Islamists don't find Egypt's government to be sufficiently radical to suit them, this has really put Egypt in a dilemma. They want to put up a good front for the West, so periodically they make a great show of busting some of the extremists. In doing this, they try to separate the ones that they consider the "crazies" from the "rational" ones that will promise to only hit Western targets and not do anything to harm the Egyptian government's position. But it's a fool's errand because there's no honor among thieves, and even as Egypt is pretending to be cooperating with the West, the Islamists are pretending to be cooperating with Egypt.

Remember, Egypt doesn't have significant oil reserves. The only thing that keeps them in the game at this point is their control of the Suez Canal and the oil shipping that passes through it. If the Iraq mission is successful, then a pipeline can be built through Iraq and Turkey to the Mediterranean, largely eliminating the need for the canal. Egypt's negotiating position is weak, but they don't seem to realize it. They could find themselves in a very uncomfortable position a few years from now.

Zyme wrote "If you promise them the same rights than to enlightened people, its too much for them to understand and thus chaos erupts."

What can I say - other than Thank You once again for demonstrating the complete racism of Euro opinion about those with darker skins

They are not "enlightened"?

I would suggest many Allied soldiers felt the same way about Germans after finding the human lampshades

There is no dispute that the Middle East has a lot of catching up to do politically - but when MILLIONS of arab muslims are in Europe living in among you - in Democracies - what are they - the exception?

I'm sorry - but this racist shit is really disgusting - yep - Bush really has Europes number

As for Gerts "both sides...blah blah blah" - listen - everyone knows both sides need to make peace

The point is that Israel can and would enforce any deal - and the Palis either can't or won't ( and it doesn't matter which ) - because - as already stated - they are an invention of the arab despots and exist purely to maintain the war against the Zionist occupiers

There will be a Pali state as soon as the Pali civil war is over

If there are enough Pali's who want a separate state next to Israel - and they win the war with Hamas et al - and can enforce the peace - then it will happen

So yes - both sides must make peace - but ALL of the pressure should be on the Pali's now to come through with actions

Too bad this isn't happening - too many Euro's can't see ANYTHING in black and white

actually in a way it is encouraging that Gert says both sides..
usually in conversations here everything is so proPalestinian that I am hard pressed to get people to see there ARE two sides to the issue.. that Israel even HAS a side.. that in itself is progress.

By the way Gert - it is the FAILURE of too many, esp in Euro, to take a black & white view of some subject - like Terorism ( esp directed at jews ) that has led to the explosive growth of this "political" expression from the arab world

When the Palis blew up people - they got political recognition and an increasing support for their cause from the Europeans

So you are surprised that AQ has learned the trick?

Maybe your mistake is not condemning the terrorism against Israel back then ( and it continues today )in black and white clarity - without any "but", and then maybe it would not have led to 9/11...Bali...Madrid...London...who is next?

like I said earlier.. look at what is condemned and what isn't..
Rostock fire at the Asylbewerber hostel. widely condemned as it should have been. There was no 'well these people (the perpetrators) have legitimate grievances, etc..'.
Asylbewerber Politik is a hot potato, both sides will acknowledge that, but methods like that are not accepted or apologized for by the German people at large.
Palestinian terrorism (what was the Rostock fire if not terrorism) is widely apologized for and as pogue says (correctly) rewarded.
Germans will accept from Palestinians what they condemn in their own people.
As the SHRUB says: soft bigotry of low expectations..
people always misunderestimate him

Its the same all over the world Ami - just look at the shock at 9/11 from the same people who semi ( or fully! ) justified the repeated terror attacks against Israel

The definition of terror and terrorist acts is not, as it widely said, in the origin of the perpetrators ( freedom fighters, etc ) but rather in the nature of the victims

When its Israelis - its not terrorism - no matter who does the deed

Regarding the black/white debate, according to Gabi's source Middle East terrorism in a historical perspective certainly has some grey elements:

"As the Zionists gained the upper hand in the region, their attention turned to the British, who were now seen as the main obstacle to forming a State of Israel. The more hard-line Jewish residents began to use terrorist tactics against both military and civilian targets in the region to bring pressure on the British. (Herein lies one of the more ironic chapters in Middle East history, because most of these tactics, pioneered by Jewish (Marxist) terrorist groups, were later used against the State of Israel for presumably achieving the same end, self-determination)."

While I would hope that all reasonable people would condemn terrorism without reservation, the above quote raises the obvious question of how to square that view with Israel's emergence. And I say that as a firm supporter of Israel.


Thats HISTORY Rofe - and by bringing it up you don't help anyone today

Its as relevant as the acts of some Jews against the Roman Authorities in 22BC

It has NOTHING to do with the complete failure of too many to condemn, without qualification, terrorism - even when its directed against Israel

In fact - its bringing up this stuff that helps to justify the terrorists

"yes, Hamas is bad for blowing up that bus...but look at what the Jews did to the King David Hotel in 1946...so its only fair that we do it too"

C'mon - give it a rest will ya

Terrorism is bad - its always bad - and no historical event changes that


Ya know, I can only chuckle. Give it a rest, indeed.



Now I can only laugh !


If only it were a laughing matter

Sadly - every "but the jews were terrorists in 1947" comment emboldens the terrorists today to justify their actions - because that is exactly what such opinions do

How much harder is it to say to the arabs/palis/muslims that terrorism is not acceptable under any circumstances while you cloud the issue with some irrelevant history

How much easier is it for them to continue the terrorism as long as people like you hedge on outright condemnation by including such comments

No - you are not that important - the point is that this "one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter" is pervasive in Europe - you are but an example

What I hope is that this kind of semi-justification finally ends for most

"Verstörend aber ist es, zu sehen, dass das Böse mittlerweile unerkennbar im Inneren des westlichen Sozialkörpers haust, wenn selbst junge muslimische Immigranten oder in zweiter Generation geborene Jugendliche der islamistischen Propaganda und moralischen Enthemmung anheim fallen und zu Selbstmordattentätern werden. Dem netten und wohlintegrierten Mohammed Atta in Hamburg, dem Traum eines jeden Sozialarbeiters, wären mit seinem Ingenieurstudium alle Möglichkeiten der Selbstverwirklichung offen gestanden - stattdessen wählte er Vernichtung und Selbstvernichtung. Auch den vier jungen Männern, die mit ihrer tödlichen Bombenfracht auf dem Rücken am Morgen des 7. Juli am Bahnhof Luton beim Umsteigen von einer Überwachungskamera gefilmt wurden, stand keine triste Zukunft bevor. Was muss alles zusammenkommen, damit sich der Vater einer vierzehn Monate alten Tochter neben ahnungslosen Mitpassagieren in der Londoner U-Bahn in die Luft sprengt? Ist es Gehorsam, Überforderung, Hass, Verzweiflung? Was sagen uns die nichtssagenden Gesichter dieser Leute? Manche im Westen meinen, die Arbeit des Begreifens mit der rituellen Selbstbezichtigung bereits geleistet zu haben, dabei hat sie noch gar nicht richtig begonnen.

Andreas Breitenstein

Hier der ganze Artikel

Interview mit Hamas-Führer Mahmud el-Saha, Corriere de la Serra, 8.7.05
Vollständige Übersetzung eines Artikels aus der italienischen Tageszeitung Corriere de la Serra vom 8.7.2005. Der Artikel beinhaltet ein Interview mit Mahmud el-Saha, dem Anführer der palästinensischen Hamas-Bewegung, am Tag der Londoner Selbstmordattentate vom 7.7.
... Auf jeden Fall können die amerikanischen oder israelische Waffen sehr wenig tun, denn am Ende wird der Islam siegen. Unsere Religion, unsere Kultur, wird die westliche Dekadenz in nur einem einzigen Jahrzehnt besiegt haben. In 50 Jahren wird sich niemand auch nur im Geringsten an die USA erinnern.
... Am Ende muss sich jeder Palästinenser zum muslimischen Leben bekehren. Auf lange Sicht wird Israel völlig vom Erdboden verschwunden sein." (Corriere de la Serra, 8.7.)

Das klingt so richtig weltoffen und tolerant. Netter Mensch. Westliche Dekadenz? Was er nur meint????

I care only about one question what brings peace to this region ?

I think we agree that the situation during the past decades and at the moment is far away from beeing peacefull.

The palestinians live there since thousands of years. These people will not leave this regions or you have to kill them or deport them.

The result is that there has to be a solution how the israeli and palestinians can live in this region in peace.

Someone posted here that the arabic nations lost several wars and that these region now belongs to israel.

Think about that. That would made the people who live there to israelis. Even now there is a huge and growing arabic israeli minority with a higher birth rate. That would solve the problem but i belive it would create a different one with new israeli fighters that want their own country.

In the end a independant palestinina state is the only solution to this conflict if there is any real solution at all and everybody knows that.

But both sites are not willing to do what is necessary to go this road.

the palestinians have to show that they can build a independant state.
That means an end to corruption a establishing a usefull administration and to fight against extremists. I would stop all payements to the palestinian administration if no progress is archived. I would establish a hard controlling system by the international community of the use of foreign money by the palestinian administration.

But without israel no palestinian administration can sell these things to their people.
The palestinina state must be able to exist independant.
So israel has to leave the occupied regions complete instead of building new villages and settlements in the west jordan region. If they want to build a wall around their country OK but htey have to build it on their own land and not deep on palestinian land. etc.
I would stop all payements to Israel if they show no progress on these issues.

Both sites can not really live without payments from foreign countries.

I did say that the Arabs waged war against Israel and lost.
I did not mean to say that these lands forever belong to Israel (although according to the laws of war, to the victor goes the spoils). My point was.. Israel is always the exception... no German would expect Breslau or Marienbad to be back in German hands, but yet everyone expects the rules to be different for Israel. Why?

I am for two states, so are most Israelis.. but don't act like it is their obligation to do it. They won three wars.. it is theirs to do with as they please, and thank God, most Israelis want two states, free, secure and at peace. (witness the Gaza evacuation by Sharon - a good faith measure if I have ever seen one)

I agree with you, two states, side by side, secure, free and at peace.
The US wants that, the EU wants that, the majority of Israels want that..
Does the Palestinian leadership want that? Do the majority of Palestinians want that? Arafat didn't.. he walked away from the bargaining table and started the second intifada. I don't know about Abbas.. yet..

go to memri.org..

and as far as cutting off money to both sides.. I am for that..

you seem like a reasonable guy, but i am not sure you realize what the Palestinians really want..

there will only be peace when the palestinians love their children more than they hate us.. - Golda Meir.

and given the hate that is preached in Palestinian textbooks, that will be while coming


as a representative of those who can see grey shades opposed to those who can only see black and white give us a outline of how it works.

Bring peace to the ME , Israel/Palestina.

Just an outline step by step, just once a detailed perception of how it should be done and will work.

and what will you do against the Palestinian terror? Or are you not disturbed by it?

It is not a matter of who was there first. We have a resulution from the UN. Israel has a right to exist. And it does but the Palestinians don't accept it and are using terror instead of using dialogue.

Why terror instead of political talk? why did they stop the talk in 2000? Why starting the Intifada?

I am sure you are a peace lover. So why don't you worry about the Palestinian terror? Any answer?


"and what will you do against the Palestinian terror? Or are you not disturbed by it?"

you can continue with the present tactics and try to kill terrorists by helicopters and other weapons but you will never kill all of them.
As the history shows they only become more powerfull as you can see with hamas.
Or you can try to address the causes of terror and work against the argumentation of these extremists. The best argument for these killers is the occupation and the treatment of the palestinian people by the israeli forces.

The thing is you will not end the terror if you simply continue as in the past. You will not save any israeli or palestinian live and the horror will go on and on.

I lived one year in ireland near the border to northern ireland. The father of the family were lived during that time was a policeman in belfast until he left because he was sick of all that hate and terror. Both sites always had, have and will have the arguments and examples why the other site is to hate and to blame for so many brutal things but everything that is produced by that is further hate and dead innocent people.

"We have a resulution from the UN. Israel has a right to exist. And it does but the Palestinians don't accept it and are using terror instead of using dialogue."

Everybody belives in the right of israel to exist and i would add i belive most israelis would prefer to exist in peace and without terror. Show me the force in this region that is powerfull enough to question the right of israel to exist.

Un resolutions are not a good argument for your view on that topic. Do you know how many resolution israel is violating at the moment.

The problem is that it is more than hard for both sites to leave these roads of the past because there are powerfull forces that don´t want a change of the present situation.

Gert - there is no Pali state - there may be someday - if the Palis decide they will live next to Israel in peace - but you should really stop speaking about it as if it exists - it does not

You wrote "So israel has to leave the occupied regions complete instead of building new villages and settlements in the west jordan region. If they want to build a wall around their country OK but htey have to build it on their own land and not deep on palestinian land. etc."

There is a huge flaw in this statement - even though you and I both consider this a good solution - the Pali's don't accept that ANY of "Palistine" is the state of Israel

Once they do that - there will be peace

"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-"Ströbele: Ending the Iraq War would do more than flight restrictions. Köln (AFP)" THIS "ARTICLE" IS FAKE AND NEVER WAS PUBPLISHED BY "KÖLNER STADT-ANZEIGER. RAY D, YOU ARE AN IMBECILE-

So the israelis can leave this regions build their wall on israeli land and we will see if there are enough reasonable palestinians that want to take the chance to build their own state as there were enough reasonable israelis in 1948.

Israel would truly gain more international support and a better standing in the world community if it would act that way.
The ball would be on the palestinian site and the palestinian administration would have to act.

By the way Ray D you should post the date when this article was published in the kölner stadt anzeiger otherwise you lose your credibilaty.

the terrorists are bombing because they pretend to want an end to "occupation". But when you listen to them in Arabic, then they tell you that this is only the first step. And why not to negotiate about it? You did not answer this.

"Die islamischen oder nationalistischen arabischen Diktaturen sind auf diese Unterdrückung
angewiesen, um überleben zu können. Etwa 50% der Bevölkerung der moslemischen Staaten ist
unter 25 Jahren, mehr als die Hälfte sind Frauen. Um insbesondere den „Zorn der jungen Männer“,
das natürliche Aufbegehren der Jugend gegen die Tradition unter Kontrolle zu halten, muß die Wut
auf äußere Feinde gelenkt werden. Juden und die USA erfüllen die Funktion des „Sündenbockes“,
die Alternative wäre, daß die Jugend sich fragen könnte, wohin die Ölmilliarden und die EUHilfsgelder
fließen. Sie könnten von den alten Männern der Regime und Terrororganisationen
Rechenschaft darüber verlangen, warum das Geld in Waffen und nicht in Bildung, Arbeitsplätze
oder Krankenhäuser geflossen ist. Sie könnten fragen, warum die Säuglingssterblichkeit der in
Israel lebenden Araber nicht einmal halb so hoch ist, wie in allen benachbarten arabischen Staaten.
Und sie könnten fragen, warum die alten Männer der Hamas und Hisbollah immer nur die Söhne
anderer Eltern als Märtyrer in den Tod schicken, während ihre eigenen Kinder in Europa zur Schule
gehen oder studieren. Das allgemeine Wahlrecht könnte für die arabischen Herrscher fatale Folgen
haben, der fundamentalistische Islam und die Externalisierung des Hasses sind die dünne Schicht,
die sie von der Entmachtung trennt.
Rechtfertigen die katastrophalen Zustände in der arabischen Welt eine Demokratisierung von
außen, vielleicht sogar mit Gewalt?Menschenrechte und Souveränität stehen hier in Konflikt
miteinander. Beide sind durch die UN-Charta geschützt und müssen im Ernstfall gegeneinander
abgewägt werden. Substantielles Völkerrecht kollidiert mit formellem Völkerrecht.
An diesem Punkt hilft das moderne Völkerrecht weiter, das zur Beschreibung von Konfliktfällen den
„positiven Friedensbegriff“ kennt. „Frieden“ existiert nur dann, wenn fundamentale Menschenrechte
geachtet werden. Daraus entsteht die Kausalitätskette der Menschenrechte: alle Staaten, welche
die UN-Charta und die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte unterzeichnet haben, erkennen
damit die Universalität der Menschenrechte an. Die Souveränität einer Regierung, auch bei
außenpolitischen Entscheidungen, resultiert danach aus einer Legitimation durch das Staatsvolk.
Menschenrechtliche Mindeststandards begründen erst die Legitimation einer Staatsführung, die
dann als Akteur den Schutz des Völkerrechts genießen kann. Menschenrechtsverletzungen können
also eine Staatsführung als Subjekt des Völkerrechts delegitimieren. Menschenrechte sind die
Letztbegründung des Völkerrechts. Ein Regime, das sich im Kriegszustand mit der eigenen
Bevölkerung befindet, darf nicht durch das Völkerrecht geschützt werden.
Diktaturen können nicht in gleichem Maße wie Demokratien den Schutz ihrer Souveränität durch
die Vereinten Nationen einfordern. Ihre Exekutive kann im internationalen Verkehr nicht die gleiche
Legitimität beanspruchen, wie die durch einen Souverän legitimierten Regierungen. Auch können
sie nicht die Rechte und den Schutz der UN-Charta fordern,wenn sie ihren Pflichten nicht
nachkommen. Dazu gehört vor allem die Verpflichtung, Terroristen keine Rückzugsmöglichkeiten
zu bieten. Staaten, die nicht willens oder nicht fähig sind, von ihrem Territorium ausgehende
Gefahren zu unterbinden, können nicht auf die Unverletzlichkeit ihrer Souveränität beharren. ..."

Mehr hier

Paßt nicht zum Thema, aber wohl zum Weblog insgesamt:

"Vor dem Präzedenzfall Kosovo und der neuen NATO-Doktrin konnte die Staatengemeinschaft den
Konflikt zwischen Menschenrechten und Souveränitätsrechten nicht befriedigend lösen. Henning
Ritter urteilte in der FAZ über das vorausgegangene Dilemma der NATO in Bosnien: „Als
zweifelsfrei ´humanitärer Krieg´ konnte der Einsatz der NATO erst begonnen werden, nachdem es
zu spät war. Denn hätte man die NATO frühzeitig, gleichsam ´präventiv humanitär´, eingesetzt,
um die sich abzeichnenden Greuel zu verhindern, so hätte dies als herkömmliche kriegerische
Aktion mit politischen Absichten und Parteinahmen erscheinen können. Da man aber zu spät kam,
um das Übel zu verhindern, durfte man glaubwürdig behaupten, ohne politisches Interesse und
ohne Hinterabsichten für eine gerechte Sache Krieg zu führen. Die grausame Logik dieses
Vorgehens steht den Abgründen der Machtpolitik in nichts nach. Als ´humanitär´ können solche
Einsätze uneingeschränkt nur deswegen gelten, weil man sich die humanen Kosten nicht
zurechnet. Eine ähnliche Moralparadoxie hat sich im Irak gezeigt: Die Vereinten Nationen haben
sich die Opfer ihrer Embargomaßnahmen [...] nie zugerechnet.“ (FAZ vom 09.01.04)
Kostet ein Frieden mehr Menschenleben als ein Krieg? Ab einem bestimmten Punkt wird die
Abwägungsfrage unmenschlich und zwingt zum Eingreifen, auch ohne den formellen Regeln einer
untauglichen internationalen Organisation zu genügen. Appeasement wäre in diesem Fall nur noch
ein verschobenes Eingreifen zu noch höheren Kosten, wie das Jahr 1938 beweist."


Genau das ist der Punkt. Aber es gab keine konservativen Medien, die eine sachliche Debatte darüber geführt haben.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

June 2022

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 29 30