« Stoiber Will Step Down | Main | Neue Strategie, alte Reaktionen »

Comments

"... for anyone interested in German political culture. It addresses the pervasive political correctness..."

And yet the German embassy has hosted the presentation of this "politically incorrect" book.

Besides, has the US embassy in Berlin ever hosted a live reading and book signing with Noam Chomsky?

"blind do-gooderism towards Islamic extremists"

Isn't that what the US has unintentionally done with the Iraq war?
IMHO, invading Iraq to turn this country into a shining democracy and role model for the Arab world is "do-gooderism."
Trying to do this without much of a plan, without sufficient troops, without sufficient understanding of Iraqi politics, Shiites, Sunnis, etc is "blind do-gooderism."
Who has benefited the most from this "blind do-gooderism"? The "Islamic extremists"

"He discusses the very real and growing synergy of ideas and shared objectives between Islamists and the far left."

Are you sure that Broder is doing that? I got a different impression from the few interviews and reviews that I read. Did you finish reading the book?

Anyway, if (!) Broder wants to have the discussion on this low level, then I could point out that many folks wrote about "shared objectives" between Al Qaeda and the Bush administration. According to them, both want the clash of civilisation. Bin Laden wanted the US to leave Saudi Arabia and invade Iraq. The Bush admin has done that. Al Qaede recruitment benefited a lot from the Iraq war. That's the kind of quality of debate Broder apparently wants to have.

"attitude of appeasement"

The Bush policy towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is HUGE appeasement!

Most 9/11 hijackers and Bin Laden are from Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were the biggest supporters of the Taliban and yet the Bush admin is appeasing both of them. Pakistan is continuing to support the Taliban in South Afghanistan, but the Bush admin and conservative Americans don't seem to care that much. They rather complain about Germany not fighting in South Afghanistan.

Sending combat troops to South Afghanistan does not make sense as long as the Taliban are supported by Pakistan and find refuge in Pakistan. If the US and Britain stop their appeasement of Pakistan, then we can talk about sending German combat troops to Southern Afghanistan.

Why is the Bush admin continuing the policy of appeasement towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Egypt as well?
"Egypt continues to broadcast violent propaganda from Iraqi Sunni insurgents": http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3160

The considerable military aid and the billions of dollars Mubarak and Musharaf receive from the US are appeasement. What is the US getting in return for it? Nothing much.

Yes, many in Germany are supporting appeasement policies.
Many Americans, who consider themselves conservative and/or hawkish, are right to criticize the attitude of appeasement in Germany (and around the world).

What I don't understand is: Why are they criticizing Europe so loudly, while being pretty quiet towards the Bush administration's appeasement of the corrupt dictators in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt?
All three countries are supporting Anti-Americanism and more in general Anti-Western sentiments and terrorism. Why are conservative Americans talking tough about Iran, Hizbollah etc and call Europeans cowards, although they are afraid to make the Saudi royals, Mubarak and Musharaf upset?

Oh, I am sure some of you will argue that Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are evil, but the US needs good relations with them and gives diplomacy a chance etc. Some of you will make all the other usual arguments and excuses for the Bush administration policies. Those are likely to be same arguments and excuses many Europeans make. When Europeans make those arguments and excuses to justify trade and negotiations with Iran for example, then you call that appeasement and cowardice etc.
Thus, please don't make arguments and excuses for the Bush policy towards Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, if you criticize similar arguments and excuses made by Europeans.

Congratulations. Broder is a great thinker and journalist. We can be happy to still have men like him in our country.

PS: Doesn't Jorg have his own blog? Maybe not enough readers there?

@ JorgAtlanticReview,

I do not know what you have been reading, but I have read a wealth of articles from libertarian and even conservative online magazines and newspapers, as well as blogs, critizing the Bush Administration position toward countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Perhaps if you spent less time trying to deflect justified critique against Germany and the EU, you would see that there are many - including people here - very much against the policy of appeasement. This blog deals with the one-sided, anti-American German media - but don't let that stop you from starting yet another blog, this time with the hypocrisy of the Bush administration as its target (after all, there are so few of those...).

Jorg, the fact that the voice of the minority position is being presented by the embassy is one of the features of a coalition government. Would an American embassy present R. Limbaugh that way?

As for the Islamic tyrannies, what could Bush do to roll back the Al Qaradawi mafia and achieve a war crime tribunal against AQ Khan? Do you have any practical proposal that could create a solid rationale for the U.S. of America to endorse the Hague, rather than the other way round?

I just wanted to point out that Henryk M. Broder is writing for – and being paid by – SpiegelOnline, DMK's arch enemy.

Ray, you are absolutely right. It is a great book, in fact, my book of the year 2006. I hope it will soon be available in English.

@ unhinged:

We've made no secret of Broder's position at SPON.

@ Jorg:

In all fairness, although the book reading/signing physically took place at the German Embassy, it was officially sponsored by a private organization called the "German Language Society." And, as someone who has worked at the "Amerika Haus" in Germany (a cultural institute with direct ties to the US Embassy), I can tell you that we frequently had American and German scholars of all political persuasions (more often on the left to suit German tastes if anything) come in and make presentations very similar to the Broder reading. Don't tell me you think the American diplomatic corps is a bastion of Conservatism. As a grad student at a major school of foreign service, I know better.

BTW: If you think the "Bush" policy towards Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is bad, what do you think about Germany's policy? How about Germany's trade with Iran and Sudan?

As far as Iraq goes, the situation is far more complicated than "Islamic extremists." While Al-Qaeda certainly remains a problem, the primary challenge is the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite and the outside interference of Iran and Syria. Incidentally, the US has killed thousands of Islamic extremists in Iraq including top-level Al-Qaeda members (a fact seldom reported in the mainstream media). Saddam Hussein was just tried and executed. Would you describe that as do-gooderism as well?

You write:

"He discusses the very real and growing synergy of ideas and shared objectives between Islamists and the far left."

Are you sure that Broder is doing that? I got a different impression from the few interviews and reviews that I read. Did you finish reading the book?"

Absolutely. On page 163 he writes:

"So wie jeder Dammbruch mit winzigen Haarrissen anfängt, so rücken pathologische Ideen von den Rändern der Gesellschaft in ihr Zentrum vor. Der Antiamerikanismus war vor 20 Jahren eine marginale Erscheinung im >>Anti-Impi<<-Milieu. Heute gehört er zum politischen Mainstream. Auch die Vorstellung, dass man sich beizeiten mit dem Islam arrangieren sollte, ist längst in der Mitte angekommen. Zuletzt hat Oskar Lafontaine, immerhin einmal Vorsitzender und Kanzlerkandidat der SPD, >>Schnittmengen zwischen linker Politik und islamischer Religion<< ausgemacht. In einem Interview mit dem >>Neuen Deutschland<< sagte er: >>Der Islam setzt auf die Gemeinschaft, damit steht er im Widerspruch zum übersteigerten Individualismus, dessen Konzeption im Westen zu scheitern droht. Der zweite Berührungspunkt ist, dass der gläubige Moslem verplichtet ist zu teilen. Die Linke will ebenso, dass der Stärkere dem Schwächeren hilft. Zum Dritten: Im Islam spielt das Zinsverbot noch eine Rolle, wie früher auch im Christentum. In einer Zeit, in der ganze Volkswirtschaften in die Krise stürzen, weil die Renditevorstellung völlig absurd geworden sind, gibt es Grund für einen von der Linken zu führenden Dialog mit der islamisch geprägten Welt.<<

He continues on for several paragraphs. You couldn't have missed it. Jorg, have you read the book?

Finally. Why don't you write what you really think about Bush and the United States on your blog instead of straining and bending (rather unconvincingly) to appear (falsely) neutral on your site? Be true to yourself and your ideas and don't fear the debate or the criticism that you aren't "even-handed" enough. Instead of avoiding debate, go for more debate.

"Trying to do this without much of a plan, without sufficient troops, without sufficient understanding of Iraqi politics, Shiites, Sunnis, etc is "blind do-gooderism."

Is anyone else tired of this "no plan" meme trotted out by the leftist appeasers ( like the DNC ) at every turn

Have they ever identified what alternative paths they would have followed - what plan they would have used - even with the full benefit of hindsight - in Iraq?

I am sure some of you will argue that Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are evil, but the US needs good relations with them and gives diplomacy a chance etc. Some of you will make all the other usual arguments and excuses for the Bush administration policies. Those are likely to be same arguments and excuses many Europeans make. When Europeans make those arguments and excuses to justify trade and negotiations with Iran for example, then you call that appeasement and cowardice etc.

Jorg

In your mind America's relations with Saudi Arabia are on the same level as Germany's relations with Iran. Are you sure? Are you serious? Do you realize what you are saying?

Jorg, the Saudi government, in spite of its many faults, does not threat Israel with total destruction and does not work actively towards that destruction. (Yes, I know, the Saudis sponsor religious indoctrination all over the world, indoctrination which includes hatred of Israel).

The level of danger coming from Saudi Arabia, no matter how high, is incomparably lower than that coming from Iran. I can't imagine you not agreeing with this. This is where a huge difference between dealing with Saudi Arabia and Iran comes from. But that's not all.

Most importantly, certain elements in the Saudi government do respond to logic and diplomacy coming from the West. The West and especially America does have some leverage in that country, there is room for maneuvering there. OTOH, Iran's government has clearly demonstrated over the past years that it will not listen to anyone, anytime. Iran is a country with openly declared aggressive intentions, which is hermetically closed to any outside influences. There can not possibly be a bigger difference between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Jorg, I can't believe you don't realize those things by yourself. So often you seem to be making arguments with your gut, not your intellect. I don't doubt your intellect a bit; I just wish you would use it more often.

Why don't you mention in your review that Broder is a reporter for the bad bad news magazine DER SPIEGEL and that he regularly writes for the bad bad online version?
And why don't you ask yourself this question: How can DER SPIEGEL hire a guy like Broder if it as bad and biased as you say it is?

well there is a saying in America sheenz - "Even a broken clock is right twice a day"

@ sheenzmesaits

Apparently you don't pay much attention, because I just addressed that in my last comment to unhinged. As already mentioned, we have made no secret of Broder's position at SPON. We've discussed it several times and my opinion is that his work is presented as a token to give the publication a thin veneer of objectivity. His work is in no way reflective of the overwhelming majority of SPIEGEL's work. Again, look at my last comment and the link I posted.

"And why don't you ask yourself this question: How can DER SPIEGEL hire a guy like Broder if it as bad and biased as you say it is?"

The culture doesn't change much for some people, does it? It's just like the old robber barons of the middle ages. They used to rape, pillage and plunder every day of the month, but on the last day they went to the priest and contritely confessed their sins. That made all their bad deeds go away, so they could start in again with a clean slate. It never did seem to make much difference as far as the people who were raped, pillaged and plundered were concerned.

Now and then I read this blog and the whole idea is a bit surprising. Europeans don't hate America. They could not, even if they tried. Because what you call America, a vague geographic concept that you treat as a socially, politically, culturally and religously homogenous phenomenon, is divided in a hundred ways. Simply can't be hated as a whole.

It's a huge mistake not to see the difference between the present political representatives of the US of A and the peoples they represent. About 50% of the population don't vote, and about 50% percent voted for your favourite. It means he was actively backed by one fourth of the citizens.

Rightwing news and comments in US websites give me the impression that the civil war has not ended. Try to solve this problem before you go solving problems abroad.

You could give a second to this thought, too: there is not one single square inch of land in the US that is not stolen and looted. Probably this has created a broad conviction that successful violence equals justice. Successful, mind you. The less successful violence, e.g. in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, has created quite a large number of pacifists.

So, bring your sound level down a bit. We love (some of) your films, we dig (most of) your music, we read your books, we buy your software, we wear your jeans, we all dream of Cadillacs and Harley Davidsons at one point or another of our lives, we don't hate America. But we are not very fond of the small minority that's ruling.

I don't understand why this has to be explained to you.

"there is not one single square inch of land in the US that is not stolen and looted".

Couldd you please explain that one?
Are you referring to the land the Europeans stole and looted prior to there being a USA?

Well, I just can't let that one go by.

@anticommunist: As pleased as I am to hear that you're an anti-communist and that you don't hate America, and appreciate films, books, software, etc. from the USA... allow _me_ to explain something to _you_.
Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, I'd avoid that word "we." You presume to speak for others who may not share your viewpoint. More about that later.
Yes, America is very diverse. Lots of different people with myriad backgrounds and political viewpoints that all call themselves Americans. That notwithstanding, there are some common beliefs that unite us, and unless you understand what those beliefs are, then you don't understand America or Americans. Hint: It has something to do with the love of individual freedoms and liberties, self-determination, and the idea that merit and not birthright should determine who gets ahead. It has something to do with the concept of the State, and the idea that the State should only do those things that the people explicitly allow it to do (a foreign concept to most Eurocrats). It has to do with allowing people to develop to their own best potentials; and not the limits imposed by the State, class, or a smothering, bloated bureaucracy that couldn't possibly care less.
You stipulate that America can't be hated. I beg to disagree with you. I've lived in Europe now for 26 years, most of that in Germany. I'm here to tell you that there are many, many of your countrymen that I unfortunately have to label as Amihassers. In some respects, you're right, because many times they don't know exactly what it is that they hate. That's because they also don't understand any of those concepts I was just referring to. Moreover, they have been conditioned by years of anti-American bias in news reporting, which is of course the point of this blog if that was lost on you. The sad thing is, they think they are well-informed about America, because they are constantly exposed to some sort of news or reports about America. Sadly, these reports are filtered, biased, and many times, simply inaccurate. So there is a very wide gap between what the typical German thinks he knows about America and Americans, and what he actually does know.
The right wing thinks the civil war hasn't ended? Where did you come up with that? Ridiculous. And as far as the US "not solving problems abroad," you should consider that there has always been, and there remains a rather strong isolationist element in American society that says exactly that. They have said in the past: Let the Europeans kill themselves, it has nothing to do with us. Let the Soviets take over Europe, it's no loss anyway. They continue to say: Let Africa self-destruct and dictators and tyrants everywhere butcher their own populations and their neighbours... as long as they leave us alone. I cannot support that position, but you should be careful about what you demand. You might get it. Somehow, I don't think the world would be a better place if America disengages everywhere, takes its ball and goes home.
So every inch of America was stolen or looted? Pot, meet kettle. You could also easily say the same thing about every inch of Europe, which at one point was taken by someone from someone else. So what's your proposed solution? How far back do you propose to go in your effort to turn around this injustice? Get serious.
I don't think unsuccessful violence creates pacifists. Pacifists are created from a belief system that has very little to do with the world we live in. Pacifists are allowed to exist because there are still enough non-pacifists around to keep them alive or from becoming slaves.
Your reference to American voter turnout is interesting, but also completely irrelevant. The US presidents you probably approve of have received even fewer votes. So what? At least in the US, if you don't like a politician, you have half a chance of voting the bum out, as we just witnessed in recent congressional elections. Just try to get rid of a poor politician in Germany. Even if you defeat him in the Direktwahl, the party will put him on a Listenplatz and he'll still be a MdB whether you like it or not.
"The small minority that's ruling." Ahh, finally we get to the matter at hand. So it's not America that's the problem, it's Bush. Why don't you just come out and say so? Sorry, but that old argument is nothing more than a red herring. Those who hate America simply use that as an excuse to be more vocal and less reasonable. It's that old condescending tone: "Why don't you Americans elect some proper Socialists and become more like us since we are so much wiser and more sophisticated?" Well, thanks but no thanks. I prefer to remain unsophisticated, but with my values and self-respect intact, not to mention that I prefer to decide myself how to spend most of my paycheck, instead of having the government decide it for me, and without my input.
Now back to that "we" problem. I politely suggest you speak for yourself. There are plenty of America-bashers out there in Germany who need their daily fixes of anti-American propaganda to get through the day. These are overproportionally represented in journalism and education, and I ahve first-hand experience with the latter. I won't make the mistake of condemning everyone... but Spiegel and Stern have a lot of readers. And ARD / ZDF have a lot of viewers. And most of those people believe that they are getting the straight story. So where does that leave us? Right here: With this blog.
I don't think Ray needs anything explained from you.

@ anticommunist

"Try to solve this problem before you go solving problems abroad."

Uh, David and I are both German citizens. It does help to actually know what you are talking about before you pop-off. It isn't "our" music, they aren't "our" jeans (and by the way, Levi Strauss was a German immigrant to the US), and they aren't "our" films. Those are nothing more than your weak stereotype-associations with the USA because you are too ignorant to really know anything about the country. And who is holding a gun to your head forcing you to consume US goods and culture anyway?

And have you ever stopped to consider that many Americans might not like the small, far-left, holier-than-thou elite that has a disproportionate level of power in both German media and politics and of which you are obviously a part? Are you trying to tell us that Europeans have never looted or pillaged (who settled North America after all?) Why don't you bring out your entire list of America's sins, you must have it memorized by heart so that you can feel morally superior. But you don't hate America. Right.

By the way: Who in the hell made you the mouthpiece for all Europeans? Isn't Europe just as diverse and divided? Who are you to "explain" anything to us on behalf of hundreds of millions of people? Talk about arrogance and condescension. Get over yourself.

No. We don't need to bring our sound level down one bit my friend. We are going to keep it pumping LOUD AND STRONG in your ear. Get used to it pal. We are in your face and we don't ever plan to stop.

Germany has a long history of "fixing" problems.

well if here this "but how can we hate America when we love your films ( some anyway ) and music?" crapola once more I may throw up

Perhaps you think that we don't understand when we are being condescended to?

Let me rephrase your "compliment" to my great nation

"We love American films and music - but when it comes to the grown up stuff - like international politics or the UN or the importance of the Kyoto treaty - you Americans are not bright enough to do the right thing. It takes a sophisticated worldview like that that of a european to deal with such things properly. After all - we have all this history while America is such a young ( ie: ignorant ) nation. So please continue to make great films and music - as young people often do - while us grown-ups take the lead in deciding how to deal with the difficult problems in the world."

If you have the guts - honestly tell me how far off the mark that interpetation is

Maybe he meant that he didn't hate America as a geographical country, but as an idea and that he hates the fact that this idea is more successful than the Euro-Socialists and their "superior" ideas? That of course means that he also would hate the people who stand for the American way. The American Left apparently doesn't anymore, they seem to prefer the "solutions" that already didn't and don't work here in Europe. Anyway:

>> We don't need to bring our sound level down one bit my friend. We are going to keep it pumping LOUD AND STRONG in your ear. Get used to it pal. We are in your face and we don't ever plan to stop.

Well said. And I thank you for that.

It's really funny to watch how you desperately need to explain and prove to everybody who says he doesn't hate America that he actually does hate it.
Of course you need to do so because your simple equation
Bush hater = America hater
wouldn't work out otherwise.

"It's really funny to watch how you desperately need to explain and prove to everybody who says he doesn't hate America that he actually does hate it."

What's funny is you and people like you trying to rationalize hatemongering propaganda as "opposition to Bush" when, as has been repeated for you and people like you about a million times on this blog, not to mention demonstrated with numerous examples, that the situation was at least as bad before Bush ever came on the scene. Hey, I hate Bush, and I support this blog 100%. Try and figure that one out from the vantage point of your ideological straight jacket.

Well, Helian... I agree. And it will continue to be as bad even after Bush is no longer in office. He has very little to do with it; he's just an excuse. Incidentally, I'm a Bush supporter, but that certainly doesn't mean that I have no criticism! For example, in foreign affairs, I think he is far too polite, forthcoming and diplomatic with the Europeans. ;-)

@sheenzmesaits: Actually, the equation is simple but you've got it slightly wrong. It's not an equal sign, it's an "ergo." Moreover, it's the other way around. Bush hater, ergo America hater is NOT what we are dealing with here. There are people who dislike Bush but love America, see Helian as an example. No, it is really the other way around: America hater, ergo Bush hater. This "simple equation" explains a lot, and it certainly explains German media, and the coverage of the American President in the same.

Yes, sheenzmesaits really does have the math wrong here. Based on considerable empirical evidence I couldn't help but collect among German academics, the appropriate relationship is not an equation at all, but the statement, "Hate America (and especially Bush), but love Clinton."

In contrast to the execrable German media reporting on the U.S., this blog and most of the commenters here bend over backward to give the German media a fair shake. In my experience, the truth of the matter is far worse than presented here, as this blog necessarliy focuses mostly on major pieces by major German news organizations. Hysterical anti-Americanism absolutely permeates German media and academia at all levels. Reporting on America is positive only when America or a subset of Americans appears to be ready to conform to, or at the very least acknowledge, the Leftist/Socialist dogma favored by the deluded Euro-elites (therefore, love Clinton).

JorgAtlanticReview, sheenzmesaits, et al., all play the same game here: They take any one item reported on by Ray and David and claim, sometimes plausibly and sometimes not, that it is not necessarily anti-American. Of course, one can always claim that about any one item, but it isn't just one item, it is thousands of articles, books, lectures, live reports, commentaries and discussions. It is even reflected in the books available in German book stores and libraries. Go to any German library and examine the section on U.S. history and politics. You will find gushing biographies of left-leaning U.S. politicians, while anything at all on Conservatives like Reagan will be ambivalent at best.

JorgAtlanticReview, sheenzmesaits, et al., disgrace themselves by implying that the German media is not anti-American -- it is unquestionably virulently anti-American. Anyone who claims otherwise simply cannot be taken seriously.

@anticommunist
Because what you call America, a vague geographic concept that you treat as a socially, politically, culturally and religously homogenous phenomenon, is divided in a hundred ways. Simply can't be hated as a whole.

This has to be the most ignorant perception of 'America' I have ever come across and only furthers my perception that Europeans are more interested in being facile than knowledgable (I don't say 'German' because I don't know if you're German).

By this understanding, 'America', is just a jumble of random incoherent cultural molecules slamming against one another that end up producing pop culture Europeans consume as 'fast food'.

The only 'vague geographic concept' is yours.

It is obviously beyond your comprehension that a people so diverse can be so united by a communally held idea that has as its genesis the premise "We hold these truths to be self evident".

Rightwing news and comments in US websites give me the impression that the civil war has not ended. Try to solve this problem before you go solving problems abroad.

The 'rightwing' Black writers and cultural icons in the U.S., such as Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice who are paragons of race-blind meritocracy.

It is the 'leftwing' Blacks who insist the civil war is not only not over but not won - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Danny Glover. These are the race pimps who would not have a pulpit, power, or money without the cudgeon of of white 'guilt' And may I remind you, it was Harry Belafonte who referred to Colin Powell as a 'house slave'. And who later extended his remarks to include Condi Rice.

So your civil war reference is either a red herring or another indication of your ignorance of America.

All of which makes this remark Try to solve this problem before you go solving problems abroad a non sequitor at best, and simply incoherent most probably.

But for the purpose of entertainment, let me address it as though it were offered with not so specific a context but simply as 'a country that has not solved its internal problems has no business trying to solve problems abroad'.

I am unaware of any social construct, be it a nation-state or a family that has ever 'solved' all its internal problems.

If your thesis were applied, the U.S. could not have retaliated against Japan because we had not resolved issues of our civil war.

If your thesis were applied, we could not have joined World War I because we had not resolved issues of our civil war.

This is the atavistic wail of EUnichs at a gang bang.
You are the self-castrated product of the defeated that cannot sustain a coherent identity when faced with an entity that will fight.

And that entity is not necessarily just the U.S.

You disintegrate when faced with jihadis also.

There is no 'you'. There is only a disarticulated skeleton.

It might seem soft to americans how muslims are treated in our continent. But especially in Germany it should not be surprising as no major terror event occurred yet successfully.
And while in many cases they are treated very forthcoming, every major organisation is under strict surveillance by our 17 offices for the protection of the constitution. So the only chance fundamentalists have is to operate all alone or in small groups, which limits their abilities since weapons cannot be aquired easily here.

When the chips are down, european response can become quite uncomfortable though: Recently I met a former school fellow who is in training as a helicopter pilot in our border patrol unit (Bundespolizei) now. On a european level the national agencies are currently being bound together in a new agency named "Frontex" that fights illegal immigration into Europe. So there are (among other nations) german helicopters and surveillance ships patrolling the mediterranean and atlantic sea, while ground units guard the flights in which the captured ones are redelivered into the african countries they crossed last. Treaties are signed with those countries that bind them to accept those fugitives. And the fact that in those north african states many redelivered refugees are simply put into a train and exposed into the Sahara desert once they have arrived doesn´t seem to bother anyone in Brussels.

So I guess refugees are considered to be a more important threat to our continent than legal muslim minorities right now. And in case important terror events will occur in Germany, one can expect the government to adjust the priorities accordingly.

Its going to be quite difficult for your government to "adjust priorities accordingly" - if this requires the use of military forces to deal with a threat - after years of focus on how wrong such an approach is in dealing with the threat of islamic facism.

How will you lock up the most dangerous ones when Gitmo has become such a symbol of injustice in europe?

Just imagine: In (the unrealistic) case of an attack like 9/11 here, there wouldn´t be any need for a camp like "Gitmo" I guess. Those found guilty would be sentenced and in a following hunt in foreign countries for the remaining responsible ones, do you really think the people would want our government to take prisoners?

First the attack would be blamed on the US, then on Israel, then on our involvement in Afghanistan and maybe some other Muslim countries, then on the "Islamophobes", then on "right-wing" politicians, then on our society that treats the suppressed Muslims so bad. The solution would be: More dialogue in order to understand what forced the poor terrorists to kill innocent people, then more concessions to restore the "peace".

But I already said that people like Gunter can't be blamed: They have never learnt anything else than to believe what our (state-sponsored) media tells them: "Don't worry, don't ask questions, the government will solve all problems for you. You (the people) just keep out of our business and and do something for your good conscience by bashing the US."

By the way: There are definetly not all Islamists and their organisations under the surveillance that would be necessary.

Gunter you have summed up why you and I can never agree because on the most fundamental level you don't get and you never will

When the next major attack occurs in Europe - and this is the exact opposite from unlikely - it is 100% certain - the response you propose involves

1) a criminal investigation and arrests and trials using the regular police and court system you have

and

2) a hunt for "the remaining responsible ones" - from which an official (?) take no prisoners policy will be followed.


For number 1 - that the way we dealt with the 1993 bombing - you can judge its effectiveness

For number 2 - the very idea that you can eliminate "those responsible" and so solve the problem has also been tried - see point number 1

and that, in a nutshell, is why I don't think you get it and really doubt you ever will

Perhaps - after the next large attack - and if it impacts you directly - you may start to understand the issue

@ Mir

Since you managed to replie without insulting me for the first time I noticed:

Today and in the last few years, people like our interior minister have proposed measures like using the army in case of a terror emergency in our country or shooting down hijacked passenger planes for example and were not able to convince their political partners in many cases. And why is that? It is because it always seems "exaggerated" to many as we have not been hit by terrorists yet. And this dam is the only real reason.

Have you never wondered why Germany is suddenly in need of its own set of espionage satellites? To predict the weather in China?
Have you never thought what we might need all this new naval equipment for? For using stealth submarines to ferry german climate scientists to the South Pole without others noticing?
Or what about the renewing of the army communication infrastructure: What do you need permanent communications for? For defending your own country or when your troops are moving through (literally) foreign lands?

In case the abstract terror threat becomes a reality, the dam is likely to fail.
I don´t say this does have to happen necessarily, but it would make sense.

@ Pogue Mahone

"When the next major attack occurs in Europe - and this is the exact opposite from unlikely - it is 100% certain"

I didn´t say a major attack in Europe is unlikely, I was talking about Germany..

"For number 2 - the very idea that you can eliminate "those responsible" and so solve the problem has also been tried - see point number 1"

Maybe you should stop associating claims with me I have not made. I have not claimed that you can get everyone. I simply wanted to explain to you why there is no need to establish a camp like the USA did. Either you can sentence them using the regular court system, or they have died due to resisting capture, regrettable accidents or sudden disease ;)

Have you never wondered why Russia´s methods in Chechnya are rarely criticized here? It´s because they leave little substance for criticism.

I have a serious case of whiplash.
@Gunter
And why is that? It is because it always seems "exaggerated" to many as we have not been hit by terrorists yet. And this dam is the only real reason.

Those found guilty would be sentenced and in a following hunt in foreign countries for the remaining responsible ones, do you really think the people would want our government to take prisoners?

Either you can sentence them using the regular court system, or they have died due to resisting capture, regrettable accidents or sudden disease ;)

Is this the same Gunter who wrote in previous threads:

Asking Germany to fight arabian fundamentalists is futile. No other industrialized country has more trade ties to the arabian world. In contrast to the USA, Germany has a reputation and many decades of good relationship to lose.

The only time terrorism actually affected my life was when holidays in northern africa became cheaper due to a recent terror strike :)

Asking Germany to cut down it´s economical ties to the muslim world would be like asking the USA to sink it´s warships in the region :)

I'm so confused.

@ Pamela

Yeah it´s the same one. And guess what, even most arabian governments don´t like terrorists.

@ Gunter

I have so far not talked to you directly because I don't come here to get involved in the kind of fruitless discussion I can have in German every day. So I'll keep this short and of course you don't have to answer: Do YOU believe the threat ist exaggerated - the threat from Islamists that is, not necessarily through terror as one of their methods?

By the way: We haven't been attacked? Munich 1972, Germans died on 9/11, Djerba 2002, etc etc. On the other hand, our media doesn't talk about these events anymore, so I guess they never happened. After all, there was no terrorism and no Islamist threat before Bush was elected.

Mir, what the hell is Djerba 2002? (I can't believe I have to ask this)

As for your reference to Munich in 1972, that is widely understood to be an attack against Jews and Israel, not Germans. And really, if you are a member of Black Steptember, where do you expect to get more sympathy than Munich?

On 9/11, Germans fatalities are widely understood to be collatoral damage.

I have to go with Gunter on this one: Germans have no reason to believe that they, as Germans, are targets.

And that is a big part of the problem.

You, my sweet Mir, are the much appreciated exception.

@Gunter
And guess what, even most arabian governments don´t like terrorists.

Oh yeah, like I have a lot of sympathy for that. They incubated it and funded it as long as it was directed at Israel and the U.S. Once the proverbial tiger they thought they had by the tail turned on them, they're having second thoughts.

Fuck 'em.

I didn´t say a major attack in Europe is unlikely, I was talking about Germany..
--------------------------------------------------

Is this Germanys plan - to feed her friends to the crocodile ( "don't attack us - its the Americans and the Jews!" )in the hopes of being eaten last?

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


"For number 2 - the very idea that you can eliminate "those responsible" and so solve the problem has also been tried - see point number 1"

Maybe you should stop associating claims with me I have not made. I have not claimed that you can get everyone.
----------------------------------------------------------

Its not that I am objecting too - its the whole idea of getting "THOSE responsible" - its like going after the pilots from Pearl Harbor while leaving the Japanese empire alone
Do you understand
-------------------------------------------------------------


I simply wanted to explain to you why there is no need to establish a camp like the USA did. Either you can sentence them using the regular court system,
-------------------------------------------

Like Milosovic - a multi year kangaroo court with plenty of propaganda

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

or they have died due to resisting capture, regrettable accidents or sudden disease ;)

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

well as long as its not America doing it I suppose its acceptable to the germans
---------------------------------

Have you never wondered why Russia´s methods in Chechnya are rarely criticized here? It´s because they leave little substance for criticism.

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

No - I have never wondered. America and Israel are not involved so of course there is no criticism

Add in some vital trade ties - and just like China and Iran - you find no criticism of actions 1000X worse than Gitmo

No - I am not confused about this at all

@ Pamela

Ghriba synagogue bombing in Djerba, 2002.

>> The truck detonated at the front of the synagogue, killing 14 German tourists, six Tunisians, and one Frenchman. More than 30 others were wounded.

>> An audio tape later claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it "sent Germany a message."

No threat here, of course. The failed bombing of two trains a few months ago were also completey harmless, I guess.

Pamela: Djerba 2002 refers to a terror attack (truck bomb) on a synagogue in Tunisia. 19 people were killed, including 14 German tourists.
Strangely, but perhaps not surprisingly, this incident doesn't seem to have made any lasting impact on the German psyche.

There is a reason why Djerba does not have a lasting impact: It caused few deaths and even more importantly it didnt happen in Germany but in a muslim country (the foreign ministry warns every german citizen not to visit them)

So when germans die in such countries, it makes people usually think "it´s their own fault when they ignore the Reisewarnung". It´s like entering a minefield despite clear signs indicating a danger for life.

@ Mir

"Do YOU believe the threat ist exaggerated - the threat from Islamists that is, not necessarily through terror as one of their methods?"

Our secret services are warning us all the time and keep telling us the terror risk is increasing constantly. So I guess it is not exagerated.
As regards the religious risk I have little concerns. You can feel among the younger part of our society that the tolerance towards muslims is depleting. As soon as the last multi-kulti-romantics are leaving politics due to age, there will be a tough wind blowing in the muslim´s faces.
And in case a serious terror strike occurs it would speed this development up a lot.

"We haven't been attacked? Munich 1972"

Well firstly as Pamela said already this was directed more against other countries and cultures than against Germany. Germany was unprepared and thus the perfect stage. But how did the government react? Despite it´s lack of appropriate preparation it ordered to counterattack, just like it did against the RAF threat. Trust me, the german political landscape is never shaked more seriously than when public security and order in Germany are threatened. Maybe it can be compared to the importance of the right of free speech or pursuit of happiness in America.

When such fundamental bases are in danger, the government has to rush to their protection if it wants to remain in power, which most governments tend to want :)
Or as we say would say in german "what else do we have our government for?"

As a side note, there are now talks to release / pardon two of the four RAF murderers that are still in prison. May have something to do with some of their former comrades now being respected politicians, journalists and all that. In other news: The innocent victims are still dead. But that's another story anyway.

There is a precedent of a member state being attacked after having taken over the European Union Presidency.*

Still the German presidency is now in its 23rd day of peace.

One decisive factor in the risk formula for the condition of the possibility of an attack is whether the Krauts in our Foreign Office will continue to bribe the Gaddafi Clan.* Or not.

Mir, ok, now I remember it. I have it stored as the 'Tunisian synagogue' bombing. 'Djerba' wasn't catlogued ;). But again, this is against Jews (what is the 'message' to Germans supposed to be when you're blowing up a synagogue? The nuance escapes me.)

As a side note, there are now talks to release / pardon two of the four RAF murderers that are still in prison.

Ugh. Which two?

The bombings in that case targeted tourists more than the synagogue, although the Islamists surely didn't have a problem with that location.

PS: Brigitte Mohnhaupt, by the way involved in an assassination attempt against US General Kroesen. Second one is Christian Klar.

Mir what the fuck is wrong with these people?
"An act of clemency would be a humane gesture," said Green party politician Volker Beck. "It would be a signal of reconciliation, which is appropriate after more than 20 years in prison."

Last week, German President Horst Köhler indicated that he may grant clemency to Christian Klar, one of the four remaining RAF members still being held in prison. A spokesman from the German president's office confirmed that the president had requested the German Justice Ministry for a statement on the case.

somebody is being bought off.

You guys need to bring back the death penalty

@ Pamela

This concept might seem foreign to non-germans, but a significant part of our society is willing to forgive the most serious crimes when the criminals have acted under the influence of a once dominating political ideology. Those RAF terrorists existed since they were influenced and supported by the communists and would be unimaginable in times like today.
With the eastern block collapsed, this part of the society sees no more reason for them to be in prison.
It is very similar to war criminals in the third reich. To protect them from being delivered to countries in which they are sentenced, this was forbidden on the constitutional level.

These people might have commited horrible acts, but they are no criminals in the usual sense. Once the political background for their actions disappears, they usually integrate very well into the society again (unlike ordinary criminals who acted without political background)

Imagine a theoretical world in abundance with no more need for money: Would there be any remaining need to keep those in prison that committed tax evasion ?

@Gunter
This concept might seem foreign to non-germans, but a significant part of our society is willing to forgive the most serious crimes when the criminals have acted under the influence of a once dominating political ideology

Do you have any idea what you have just written?

'We were only following orders'.

So. Eichmann would be 'forgiven' because Germans got over it? Himmler and Goebbels would be forgiven because Germany got past it?

What you are saying is that if German society has moved beyond the sins in question, the sinners in its employ of those sins should not be recognized as such because they were culturally sanctioned.

These people might have commited horrible acts, but they are no criminals in the usual sense.

Gunter, you are lost. You are lost politically. You are lost morally. You are lost spiritualy.
You are correct - they were not criminals in the usual sense. They did not simply rob people or beat them up.


EVA SLONIM: This woman was giving birth. Only one baby was born. She left the baby and she ran for her life. She ran. She ran. Dr Mengele came in. He was in a very bad mood. He was furious. He took the baby - shall I tell you what he did? He stood on the baby, tore it in two, threw the baby, threw it away.

EVA SLONIM: And I pushed the door open, and I saw the children that were missing - I saw the bodies of the children that were missing, that had left our barracks, and parts of their bodies next to them, and I saw ears and lungs, and then there was one boy that was with me on the transport, in the same wagon, and I saw him sitting up with his arm next to him, but cut off, and sitting there, and I realised then they did terrible things to children

Once the political background for their actions disappears, they usually integrate very well into the society again (

Oh good luck with that one Gunter.

You are an absolute piece of shit.


At no point I said that I would approve this way of thinking. I wanted to explain the reasons why it is possible that now there is a discussion here about pardonning those RAF murderers.

As regards those guys that committed crimes in the name of their ideology in the third reich or in the eastern block, they are no criminals in the usual sense because they stick to the system they live in and don´t violate laws. Once the system is gone they are ordinary citizens again while criminals who violate laws and act out of self interest have a high "Rückfallquote".

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