« Another Outstanding Cartoon Site | Main | Appeasement Reinvented »

Comments

For the nth time, Nazis were socialists and hence on the left. Use your brain, people.

I bet Anastasiadis and Zepelin believe Islam is a "religion of peace" and that history began in the spring of 2003.

It is all about social justice.

Hell everyone knows that. And that is one thing Germany has which will keep it safe

"It’s the idea of a glorious life after death. Everything else is excuses, pretenses, rationalization of the irrational".
Yeah, this is true. If you have doubts, see this clip and hear two really nice Palestinian girls talk about going to the paradise:

http://pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Walla_7.asx

The interview is in Arabic with English subtitles. The things being said in the movie are so bizarre that you may think the translation is not accurate. But it is accurate!

250,000 iraqi expats in england. Not one involved with the bombing.

Sure...its all about Iraq.

@ Amihasser

Yesterday I saw a link to a nazi website that was supposed to belong to you. Is that right?


"It has dramatically fanaticized the Islamic world and plunged the world into a maelstrom of violence." This is from the "Münchner Merkur"? Nothing but peace and love in, for example, Sudan or Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq? Insanity. I feel disgusted.

"Die Welt", Broder in "Der Spiegel" and the Blogs is what is still worth reading.

I have always wondered about the popular conservative credo that we shouldn´t ask for the reasons of terrorism: 'There are no reasons! To imply otherwise is leftist and apologetic!'

Really? Poverty and bad education aren´t reasons for terrorism?

Then what was the whole Iraq war about? Why all this fuss about establishing democracy, if it won´t change anything?

Der Irakkrieg soll also die arabische Welt fanatisiert haben? Waren das nicht die Islamisten, die ihre Anhänger aufrufen gegen die Frauenemanzipation, gegen Rechte von Homosexuellen, gegen lockere Moral, gegen Demokratie, Gewaltenteilung, Trennung von Religion und Staat, gegen den Westen mit seinen Vor- und Nachteilen, mit seiner Vielfalt und unendlichen Großzügigkeit, gegen Atheismus, Un- und Andersgläubigkeit? Und wie fangen diese feigen Rattenfänger die jungen Männer, die ihr Leben für deren Haß geben? Mit Parolen, daß der Irakkrieg Unrecht sei, den Islam demütigen würde, daß Israel eine Schande im arabischen Raum sei, eine Vorhut der Amerikaner, ein Stachelm im arabischen Fleisch, daß der Westen die Araber demütige, den Islam demütige. Junge Menschen mit ganz persönlichen Schwierigkeiten und Fehlschlägen, mit wenig Selbstbewußtsein lassen sich da gerne einfangen, um groß, stark und männlich zu sein und sich für eine gemeinsame angeblich großartige Idee hinzugeben, ganz heroisch, für einen Moment Held zu sein, um für immer ins schwarze Loch zu fallen, aber das wissen sie ja nicht. So kommen sie sich auf einmal wichtig vor, stellen was dar in dieser Gruppe, geben ihren Anführern Wichtigkeit und werden doch nur als Idioten benutzt.

Die Anastasiadisse dieser Welt helfen ihnen tüchtig dabei, diesen labilen Menschen einen Grund zu geben, eine Rechtfertigung. Sie helfen tüchtig mit, Bush und Blair für den Terror verantwortlich zu machen, statt zu erkennen, daß der Irakkrieg nur vorgeschobener Grund ist, Idioten zu rekrutieren, die sich mißbrauchen lassen und ihr Leben wegwerfen. So funktioniert doch der Terror mit seinen Selbstmordattentätern. Man muß nur genug Dumme finden, die auf die Propaganda hereinfallen.

Die Anastasiadisse dieser Welt mögen nicht dumm genug sein, sich selbst (und andere) zu töten, aber dumm genug zu glauben, der Irakkrieg würde Terror verursachen. Damit beteiligen sie sich am Haß Schüren und setzen eine (Mit)Ursache.

Ulrich Speck hat es hervorragend beschrieben:

Die Lebensläufe von europäischen Djihad-Kämpfern, die mitunter bereit sind, ihr Leben zu opfern, weisen offenbar ähnliche Strukturen auf.

Es scheint mit einer Persönlichkeitskrise zu beginnen, die nach außen sichtbar werden kann, aber nicht muss. Der zweite Schritt ist die Anbindung an islamistische Kreise, wobei das Internet anscheinend eine wesentliche Rolle spielt. Auf einschlägigen Websiten werden Anschauungen und Weltbilder vermittelt, mit deren Hilfe das individuelle Scheitern als nicht mehr als individuell verstanden werden kann, sondern eine tröstende Auflösung erfährt: Nicht man selbst ist gescheitert oder hat versagt. In Wahrheit hatte man gar keine Chance. Denn als Moslem ist man Teil einer Opfergemeinschaft. Das eigene Scheitern oder Versagen ist Folge eines raffinierten Verschwörungs- oder gar Ausrottungsplans: "Zionisten" und "Kreuzzügler" bedrohen den Islam, den Kern der eigenen Identität, mit Marginalisierung und Auslöschung. Gemeinsam haben sie die einstige Herrlichkeit des Kalifats vernichtet, Glanz und Glorie des Islams. Ihrer machtvollen Bosheit und ihrer perfiden Rafinesse ist es zu verdanken, dass der Islam nicht mehr dominiert wie früher einmal, sondern geknechtet und unterdrückt wird. Die russische Besetzung Afghanistans, die Balkan-Kriege der 90er, Tschetschenien, der zweite Afghanistan-Krieg, der Irak-Krieg und der Nahostkonflikt - eine lange Reihe von Belegen für die islamistische Zentralthese, dass der Islam unterdrückt und geknechtet wird von Juden und Kreuzzüglern, dass die überlegene Religion und Kultur des Islam der Gewalt und der Intrige zum Opfer gefallen ist. Der dritte, logische Schritt ist der Schritt zur Gewalt, die als Gegengewalt gesehen und legitimiert wird: Man definiert sich als Opfer, das sich "nur" zur Wehr setzt, man definiert die eigene Tat als Akt der Notwehr. Zugleich reinigt man sich durch die Tat von der Verschmutzung und Infiltrierung durch den dekadenten Westen, indem man sich zur Waffe des Islam macht. Das eigene Leben erhält einen Sinn; insbesondere durch das Selbstmordattentat schreibt man sich in die Geschichte ein: man tritt heraus aus der namenlosen Masse und wird für die eigene Community zum postum gefeierten Held, zum Märtyrer.

Der Begriff des Islamofaschismus ist teilweise empört zurückgewiesen worden. Doch die Haltung der Djihadisten scheint tatsächlich viele Parallelen zur Mentalität der deutschen Nationalsozialisten aufzuweisen. Auch hier fühlte man sich verraten ("Im Felde unbesiegt"), niedergestreckt von einem heimtückischen "Dolchstoß", man sah sich umzingelt von Feinden (Einkreisung), man hielt die eigene Kultur für die Überlegene (arische Herrenmenschen), definierte sich als Opfer einer jüdischen Verschwörung, wandte sich im Namen höherer Werte ("Blut und Boden") gegen den "platten" amerikanischen Materialismus.

http://kosmoblog.blogspot.com/



Your post is disingenuous if you are implying that the Iraq War has not increased the threat of terrorism. Did you read the testimony provided by the CIA to congress earlier this year?

"The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday."

Front page, Washington Post

slightly OT, but has anybody noticed the coverage of the Discovery Mission in the german MSM? "Pleiten, Pech und Pannen" - no matter what the Americans do, it's all crap, nothing works, ...

Sorry, but I think nothing short of a gigantic terrorist act in Germany will convince most Germans that they also belong to the free human race.

Any discussions of the Iraq war or Muslim terrorism will create a far more sympathetic ear by politicians at Berlin after they must see that their own "neutrality" means no more than a damn to Islamo extremists. After all, West Europeans were all part of the "Crusades", remember??

Peter P. Haase
Boca Raton, Florida

Artikel URL: http://de.news.yahoo.com/050803/286/4mx0z.html

Mittwoch 3. August 2005, 12:14 Uhr
Neue Enthüllung zu Anschlägen des 11. September

Hamburg (AFP) - Die Attentäter vom 11. September sind nach Recherchen des "Stern" zum Teil in Duisburg angeworben worden. Der in Paris inhaftierte Marokkaner Karim Mehdi habe gegenüber französischen Ermittlern bezeugt, dass der spätere Todespilot Ziad Jarrah und Anschlagsdrahtzieher Ramzi Binalshibh 1999 in Duisburg rekrutiert worden seien, berichtet das Magazin. Demnach waren die Mitglieder der Hamburger Terrorzelle weit enger mit einer El-Kaida-Zelle im Ruhrgebiet verbunden als bislang bekannt.

Jarrah und Binalshibh seien bei einem mehrstündigen Treffen in der Duisburger Wohnung des Mauretaniers Mohamad Ould Slahi angeworben worden, bei dem Mehdi anwesend war. Gestützt würden diese Angaben durch eine dem Magazin vorliegende Aussage von Slahi, der im US-Stützpunkt Guantanamo einsitzt. Bislang war lediglich bekannt, dass sich Binalshibh gegenüber US-Vernehmern in ähnlicher Weise geäußert haben soll.

Neben Slahi sei in dieser Zelle der deutsche Islamist Christian G. eine maßgebliche Figur gewesen. Er wartet wegen seiner mutmaßlichen Verwicklung in das Attentat von Djerba 2002 in Frankreich auf seinen Prozess. Dem Magazin zufolge gilt er bei französischen Fahndern als der "größte Fisch, der bislang in Europa ins Netz ging". E-Mails zufolge, die dem "Stern" nach eigenen Angaben vorliegen, soll G. in engem Kontakt zu dem als Terrorhelfer angeklagten Mounir El Motassadeq gestanden haben..."
----------------------------------------------------

Terroristen in Duisburg lange vor dem Irakkrieg? Wie erklären die Anastasiadisse dieser Welt denn dies?

Das war von mir. Gabi

Stunning level of misinformation - even by German MSM standards

Is that Munich paper a real publication? Did they actually print that the "invasion of Iraq" has caused all this islamic terrorism? Maybe I need to brush up on my history - wasn't 9/11, Bali, etc etc BEFORE we liberated Iraq?

Anyway - to answer your question, if it was a question, Abe - to wonder if the liberation of Iraq has increased terrorism you need to clarify the question

Has it increased terrorism in the short term - yes

Will it decrease terrorism in the long term - hopefully

Would NOT doing it have decreased terrorism in the long term - certainly not


It displays an amazing naivte to think that through ignoring the gathering menace of islamic terrorism and its state sponsors ( who are also speeding ahead with WMD plans ) we can be safe in the long run

We can't win any war on "terror" - we must win the war for freedom in the ME and the world

The root cause of virtually all the terror in the world today is islamic facism

The Saddams are more than willing to ally with this ideology when it suits their purpose ( witness Saddam adding arabic verses from the Koran to the Iraqi flag in the 1980's - his alliance with Hamas and Hezbollah murderers )

To suggest that this was not a forseable danger is idiotic

To suggest the same in the post 9-11 world is lunacy

This is the main reason why there is no President Kerry today by the way

So I am happy to agree that our actions in the ME have increased terrorism in the short term

Much as I understand that American's in general were not as safe on Dec 8 1941 as they were on Dec 6 1941

When you fight back - this is the short term result

If you speak up - you are also in danger - latest death in Iraq is a blogger - Steven Vincent

http://spencepublishing.typepad.com/in_the_red_zone/

Yes, I know it's bad in Germany. But. I just got email from a friend in North Carolina. She went out to dinner with her boyfriend's relatives.

It was the first time they had ever heard the word 'caliphate'.

sigh.

"Poverty and bad education aren´t reasons for terrorism?"

Islamic fascist ideology is the reason for terrorism -- at least according to the terrorists. "Poverty and bad education" are reasons given by people who don't bother to research the subject (i.e. multicultural apologists and leftists promoting their ideology). Of all known terrorists (dead, captured or on the run), a majority are college educated and come from a middle class or upper-middle class background.

At least the United States can liberate one country. As soon as the last G.I. crosses the border into Poland, we can post a vacancy sign for those interested. When it comes to German freedom, Ich bin ein sweet roll. Or a hamburger, hold the onion. Never again a Berliner.
Better Red than Dead sure hangs on, doesn't it?

/// Is that Munich paper a real publication? Did they actually print that the "invasion of Iraq" has caused all this islamic terrorism? Maybe I need to brush up on my history - wasn't 9/11, Bali, etc etc BEFORE we liberated Iraq? ///

So "You" liberated Iraq ? ... recovering from laughing ...

And when was it when "You" liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi? And let the Iraqi half liberated back to a revenge thirsty Saddam ... although "You" could have done the "Liberation" with less effort then and with less arguments after? It was this event what started the terror in the minds of the arabic people.

Btw: They (the liberated) live in the middle ages mentally (even though they use cars and TV) - it needs probably centuries and a lot of wise people to explain them that the earth is not the center of the universe and that there is no thing like paradise or even a life of any form after death or a God or an Allah or whatever!
They are centuries apart from being liberated in their minds...

Actually, most of the rest of the world (incl. USA and Europe) has to learn this as well...
What is a leader of a Nation worth who asks a non-existing God (a spleen in his mind) for help and support?

You cannot fight religious motivated Terrorism as long as you can reduce the cause of the terror to a religious fight between 2 groups or nations who only believe into different Gods but both believe in a glorious recovery after death in a flower-filled and free whiskey for everyone paradies...

I read today that Mr. Bush wants that children should learn alternatives to the evolution theory in school... I bet he means the view of the Bible as the only instance to explain the world...

@ ralle
You do make some points, however, it's not a grand slam.

Every person has a personal believe and that should be sacred under the law. In contrast, so should every persons belief who contrasts that view.

I am an agnostic. I do believe in a supreme being, whose identity I don't know or ever will know. I am not narrow minded to believe in a particular segment of the dogmatic christian religion. Simply, I don't believe in an old bearded person who directs and controls every persons movement and thought process from the clouds.
I further believe that the laws that were placed upon us are the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. We, the people, should follow those laws to explore, experiment and investigate all that is available to us.
I do believe in a creator, otherwise, none of this world would make any sense. While the 10 commandments were probably written by man, I see nothing wrong with it.

In summary, (I could go on forever) every person should practise and worship according to their beliefs without inciting violence.
If they do................kill them before they kill us.

(Side note) Isn't it amazing that a country as big as a postage stamp can flourish economically while their neighbors, many times their size can only complain about their misfortune and seek aid from the rest of the world?

Wait one damn minute! I thought terrorism couldn't be resolved without Islam driving the Jews into the sea?

Weakness begets policies of weakness, indecisiveness, denial and appeasement. The Germans and French are a classic examples. If the governments of both countries and their media are representative of what power resides in Western Europe, Europe is dead.

@ amibychoice
I didn't want to make a grand slam... I only wrote some thoughts in all the shortness that the blogscene allows (write a long book and no-one is interested or doesn't have the time to read it)...
I could write on forever as well - but what does it effect? You will need another 100 years to KNOW that there is no motivation for a God to pick the earth out of trillions of planets as its main toy and then doing nothing with it or has any interest in judging Billions of people on what they have done on this planet and whether they have worshipped HIM or not and all that rubbish.
If everyone would know that death is the end they would have more respect for life - because there is no alternative. Christian or Islam or Hindu or Atheist - dead is dead.
Its obvious that religious people are stupid enough to believe everything and will die for anything as long as they believe it has rather no consequences ... 'cos there's something better ahead anyway ...
Tell those idiots that there are new virgins (!!!) waiting for them everyday in paradise and a suicide is the best thing they can do ... especially if they free the earth from some hundred "unbelievers" ...
Can you imagine how frustrating it can be sometimes to be born into such a world - short time after WW2 - and to have spent your life while this world got crowded by 5 - 6 Billion idiots? (Idiots = not able to think logical and believing what some gurus are telling them, etc., etc.)...

... and to answer your next question: yes - there are only a few worldwide ... and the statement above is a provocation to you to try everything to find enlightment ...

Ralle, please give me a list of all the nations who spoke out in support of the US invading Iraq after GWI? I'd like some quotes from UN ambassadors and the coalition leaders of their opinions on the matter. I was paying attention back then, and no one was willing to stand beside us inside Iraq. The Shia's blood is not on my head only, it is all over you too. And especially the UN supporters, because the UN has done nothing but piss on all of the Iraqi people ever since watching Hussein cut off their ears and generally rape, pillage and burn them. That was not our choice, it was yours. The Iraqis will decide their own fate now. You hate that, but I don't. They will themselves fight for and earn whatever type of society they choose. If you were a decent man, you would wish them every blessing instead of continuing to burn them down.

>For the nth time, Nazis were socialists and hence on the left. Use your >brain, people.

I think thats a tad too easy. If they were socialists, then very strange ones. They were supported by big business and industries, came into power with the help of conservatives and were generally heralded as defenders against Soviet communism. That said, they certainly undertook a lot of populist socialist measures in order to keep their war-weary 'volk' satisfied, but the economy was only nationalized in order to prepare for World War II.
In the pre-war period up to 1937, under Hjalmar Schacht, no meaningful socialist measures were undertaken, and no entrepreneur faced prosecution for not being a proletarian.

Look around this world. Socialism and Fascism walk hand in hand. Always have.

CCTV: "If they were socialists, then very strange ones. They were supported by big business and industries, came into power with the help of conservatives and were generally heralded as defenders against Soviet communism."

Uh... you'd better check again. The Nazis were not SUPPORTED BY big business, they CONTROLLED the big businesses in Germany. The businesses had no choice but to cooperate with the government because of regulation.

The very definition of fascism describes a socialist state in which businesses operate under private ownership, BUT are tightly regulated by the government. This is NOT the free corporate business environment of a capitalist nation.

There is only that one hair's breadth that separates fascism from communism. Fascism is MUCH closer to communism than it is to capitalism.

As for "conservatives", that all depends upon what it is that you're being conservative about. "Conservative" and "liberal" don't fit on the left-right political scale at all because it is the CONTEXT that matters.

For example: In 1991, a group of communist extremists attempted to take over the old USSR. Gorbachev was kidnapped (or at least held incommunicado in his country dacha), etc. No need to go into the whole story of the collapse of the USSR.

The point, however, is that the news media all over the world were referring to the members of the putsch as "conservatives". Men so far to the left they fell off the planet and lost touch with reality were being called "conservatives". Why? Because they were "conservative" about maintaining their communist roots.

Germans who are strident about maintaining those things unique about German culture are conservative.

Americans strident about maintaining those things unique about American culture are conservative.

Communists strident about maintaining those things unique to communism are conservative.

Mullahs strident about maintaining those things unique to Islamic culture are conservative.

So "conservatives" are not people who all share a specific viewpoint. What "conservatives" think about all and what they support depends upon what they want to conserve.


And exactly when hasn't the world been against US? That statement shows how little you understand US history and our place in the world.

We were "liked" after our Revolution, but no one would lend us any money.

We were "liked" after WWI and WWII, kind of - but they really liked/like our $.

So how about the other 200-odd years?

The opposite of communism is not fascism, it is liberty. Communism and fascism are 2 sides of the same coin.

You guys had to come up w/the differences to motivate your people to once again slaughter each other.

@ Ralle "Nietsche is dead" God. To borrow a concept from Mark Twain, I'd say the reports of God's demise are greatly exaggerated. Many people of faith have lived to piss on the graves of the great Socialist demi-gods. Oddly enough faith seems to give people and their cultures a Darwinistic survival advantage. May your lack of faith serve you so well.

Love to see these Islamofascist apologists back themselves into a corner. It's like watching cockroaches scurry for cover.

@fuchur:

"Really? Poverty and bad education aren´t reasons for terrorism?"

If they are, the vast numbers of poor people in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia - much poorer than most Arabs - don't seem to think so.

Why is it that all the recent terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic Fascists? If poverty and bad education are reasons, where are the African or Indian terrorists?

Great name there Brock :)

As for Ralle - so much to enjoy there

The screeching "why didn't YOU liberate them in 1991" - as if he ( if he was sentient enough and not soiling diapers then ) had supported the invasion and occupation of Saddams Iraq back then - going BEYOND the precious UN mandate

As stated so many times already - the US is damned for NOT doing X back in YYYY and damned for doing X in YYYY

Its a no win - the US is always at fault


But I do find your bigotted intollerance for those who choose to believe in God enlightening

Funny isn't it - the most intolerant people in the world are often those who decry the religion of others

Brock,

Get use to it - the left is always about "root causes". The two items cited are just part of this larger "root causes" concept. It might as well because on some days the sky is blue. Makes about as much sense.

Pamale on the other hand believes if one were to follow the "root causes" concept to its logical conslusion the real terrorists would all be women espiecally black women. So be aware and be warned of black women.

>Uh... you'd better check again. The Nazis were not SUPPORTED BY big >business, they CONTROLLED the big businesses in Germany. The businesses >had no choice but to cooperate with the government because of regulation.

Well first of all I referred to the period before and the first years after Hitler came into power in 1933. No one in his right mind can deny the large financial support that was given to Hitler by industrialists like Thyssen, Krupp etc who began to donate to the NSDAP as early as 1927.

I do not deny that Hitler created some sort of command industry on the eve of World War II. However, this is a trademark of all dictatorships that comit themselves to a "total" war, you simply dont have a free market economy under these circumstances. Unlike in socialism, in facism this is just means to an end, not a goal by itself.

If you think centralizing the economoy in times of war and limiting its freedom in times of peace is identical to socialism, then you certainly expand that term and will have to call much more dictatorships socialist.

>There is only that one hair's breadth that separates fascism from >communism. Fascism is MUCH closer to communism than it is to capitalism.

>As for "conservatives", that all depends upon what it is that you're >being conservative about. "Conservative" and "liberal" don't fit on the >left-right political scale at all because it is the CONTEXT that matters.

>For example: In 1991, a group of communist extremists attempted to take >over the old USSR. Gorbachev was kidnapped (or at least held >incommunicado in his country dacha), etc. No need to go into the whole >story of the collapse of the USSR.

I dont think that this completely elastic definition of the term conservative does help alot. Of course, if you take the pure meaning of the word conservative, you can call people of all different currents of thought conservative as long as they are in a position where you can find other people who want to change the current status quo, even if that status is already extreme.
By the same token, you could take the word communist and call everybody a communist who is in favour of some minimal government intervention as long as complete free market enthusiasts are in power.

The German Zentrum had beliefs and fought for views that are clearly conservative when compared to modern Western conservative parties regarding issues like welfare, religion, strong military, cultural heritage, patriotism etc.

Anyway, I didnt mean to attack conservativism, or even link it to fascism. The true point was that these conservatives, like Papen, were staunch anti-communists, and they still cooperated with the Nazis, not because they thought their cause was a great thing, but because they believed it was significantly different from the communist and socialist parties and would protect them from the dictatorship of the proletarians.
This illustrates that even back then the "Socialist" in NSDAP was more of a propaganda phrase to appear as the party of the small men, than a true cornerstone of their ideology.

Concerning Nazis/Socialst relastionship:

It depends on how you define the extremes of the political spectrum.

There is a school of thought that argues that the extremes are "total freedom of the individual" vs. "total control by the state".
In this spectrum, socialism and nazism is indeed rather close together at the control-end of the spectrum.

If the extremes are "all power to our nation" (in which all classes have equal share) vs. "all power to our class" (in which all nations have equal share), than socialsm and nazism are way apart - at least in theory.

In practice of course, things get more difficult: a socialsist who believes investment by foreigners is evil, investment by local businesses is good? Well, well, well...

@Fuchur -

Really? Poverty and bad education aren´t reasons for terrorism?

There's a notable lack of terrorists in Bangladesh, the slums of Calcutta, and non-Muslim Africa. It almost makes you think it could be something else, huh?


@Walter - Ich bin ein placek?


@Ralle -

And when was it when "You" liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi? And let the Iraqi half liberated back to a revenge thirsty Saddam ... although "You" could have done the "Liberation" with less effort then and with less arguments after? It was this event what started the terror in the minds of the arabic people.

Then I guess the Islamic terror of the 60's, 70's and 80's was just a mass hallucination? Incidentally, the liberated happen to be one of the most highly educated societies in the middle east, and your tone doesn't suggest any awareness that your speculation isn't knowledge - I submit that I've found a better use for the talents of "centuries of wise people" in you.

And what Mr. Bush wants children to learn is that there is more than one point of view regarding the development of the world's species. I'll take into account, however, that providing more than one point of view might be unpopular in your culture.

What does Blair do against Galloway?


British MP George Galloway in Syria: Foreigners Are Raping Two Beautiful Arab Daughters - Jerusalem and Baghdad

The following are excerpts from interviews and a speech by British MP George Galloway, which aired on various Arab channels on July 28 and 31, 2005.

Galloway (on Syrian TV, July 31, 2005): Mr. Blair is using this crime and all these dead people as a justification for this absurd idea of a war on terrorism. "Terror" is a word... Terror is a tactic, it's not a strategy. The idea that Muslims have some kind of sickness in their bodies, which must be cured, which is the idea behind Bush, behind Mr. Blair, and behind Mr. Berlusconi's government in Italy - It must be resisted. It's not the Muslims who are sick. It's Bush and Blair and Berlusconi who are sick. It's not the Muslims who need to be cured. It's the imperialist countries that need to be cured.

[...]

The real question is, after the evidence of Sykes-Picot 1, are you ready to accept Sykes-Picot 2? What does Sykes-Picot mean to the Arab world? Nothing except division, disunity, weakness, and failure. Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad. The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will. The daughters are crying for help, and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters. Why? Because they are too weak and too corrupt to do anything about it. So this is what Sykes-Picot will do to the Arabs. Are you ready to have another hundred years like the hundred years you just had?

[...]

Galloway (on Al-Jazeera TV, July 31, 2005): This started out as a wish to terrorize the world with American power, or as Sharon would say: "Terrrrrrorize" the world with American power. But in fact it ended demonstrating the exact opposite. They can control the skies, but only if they don't come within range of an RPG, but they can't control one single street in any part of occupied Iraq. Not one street. Not one street anywhere. These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable by the people who occupy it. We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders. I'm sure, for all the times I spent in Iraq, that I never met any of them before. They are not the comfortable in the former regime, they are not the leaders, with maybe one exception: Izzat Ibrahim Al-Durri. They are the base of this society. They are the young men and the young women who decided, whatever their feelings about the former regime - some are with, some are against. But they decided, when the foreign invaders came, to defend their country, to defend their honor, to defend their families, their religion, their way of life from a military superpower, which landed amongst them. And they are winning the war. America is losing the war in Iraq, and even the Americans now admit it. Even the puppet ministers and regime in Baghdad know it. The former puppet minister (Iyad) Allawi admitted it three times in the last month. America is losing the war in Iraq. And this will not change. The resistance is getting stronger every day, and the will to remain as an occupier by Britain and America is getting weaker everyday. Therefore, it can be said, truly said, that the Iraqi resistance is not just defending Iraq. They are defending all the Arabs, and they are defending all the people of the world from American hegemony.

[...]

It's not the Muslims who are the terrorists. The biggest terrorists are Bush, and Blair, and Berlusconi, and Aznar, but it is definitely not a clash of civilizations. George Bush doesn't have any civilization, he doesn't represent any civilization. We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. He believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That's his god. That's his god. George Bush worships money. That's his god - Mammon.

[...]

Galloway (on ANB TV, July 28, 2005): Most of the children, most of the schools, most of the buses, were bombed by the United States. Let's keep this clearly in perspective: Most of the children who died in Iraq were killed by George Bush, not by Zarqawi. Most of the schools that were wrecked, buses that were bombed, hospitals that were destroyed, lives that were taken, were taken by George Bush, not by Zarqawi. Number two: Most of the resistance in Iraq is not Zarqawi, It's not foreign, whatever "foreign" means when Iraq is occupied by 250,000 foreign armies. Most of their resistance are Iraqis resisting the foreign occupation of their country. Most of the operations which they carry out are against the occupying forces and their collaborators, and this is normal in every liberation struggle.

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=788

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