Posted on 08/01/2006 9:37:24 AM PDT by wolf78
Suitcase bomb found in German train
1 August 2006
DORTMUND, GERMANY - A bomb has been found aboard a German train, with prosecutors saying Tuesday, the morning after it was discovered, that it had been powerful enough to maim or even kill.
Bomb-disposal specialists disabled the device Monday evening in the main railway station in the western German city of Dortmund.
"The contents were capable of severely injuring or even killing people," said prosecutor Ina Holznagel.
The device included a canister of propane gas, a timer and wires.
(Excerpt) Read more at expatica.com ...
"You express my secret hopes and imaginations. I just hope that if the Muslims really don´t want to become valued members of our societies and remain ambassadors of the evil empire, they provocate us enough before they’re too many so that we’re going to fill trains and planes with destination Mideast. If they’ll be at more than 15%, a civil war cannot be ruled out."
---
You speak the truth.
It's not racist, evil or mean spirited. It's just a simple fact. They are not Judeo-Christian in culture and in fact want to convert others even if at the point of a sword. They do not integrate nor do they EVER want to. They see Western culture as decedent and inferior in fact.
Truth is, most Muslims are OK, but within even these groups they 'tolerate' those who commit these acts. Madrid, London, 9-11 or even this potential bombing, other people did know, and they did not talk! Why? Because in the Muslim world even within the non- radical elements you still have sympathy for the cause of the radicals.
I told this to Atlantic Bridge and many other as well but the “Deutsche Weg” of Schroeder or whatever got into the way of common sense with many Germans even on the political right. In the end, for the Islamist, you are nothing but an infidel, and the Koran spells out in very clear and in non-ambiguous terms what is to be done with someone like you.
Are all Muslims bad? No. But once they start becoming more abundant they begin to place demands. You see this EVERYWHERE: Sudan, France, Lebanon, or even Germany and the USA are examples. In small numbers they will shut up and be quiet, but once they become more abundant they will speak their collective mind, and that will not sound good. Once they hit 10% or more, you get what you have in France or even the Netherlands, and as they get more things will not get better. They will just take over.
Der Islamist und Schurkenstaat ist die neue Bedrohung unserer Zeit. Wie der Kalte Krieg ist dies ein Krieg zwischen Zweier Ideologien. Es wird Jahrzehnte in Wirklichkeit brauchen um dieses Biest zu besiegen.
Ganz richtig. The main problem with the moderate Muslims is, that they are not willing to accept their new home state as priority number one. They remain Turks, Marocs, Iranians or Algerians in the first place. Germans by passport, but "foreigners with their hearts". Slicing them from their countries of origin is the key. I have serious doubts that this can be achieved at all.
There is another issue of concern.
While it is understandable that people associate who they are with their nationality and therefore defend the actions of ones state as some try, it is near "alarming" to see how the threat is downplayed within the German political establishment.
One must only look back 4-5 years at Libya, or today with near no political figure touching the subject and the relative media silence despite this issue being a big deal even with these bombs. Few even know that there was an assassination attempt on the Iraqi leader in Germany several years ago and the fact that the 9-11 terrorists resided and plotted their acts largely out of Hamburg has also already faded from the public’s consciousness in Germany.
The "Volk" does not want to see a problem. The political leader is choosing to not touch this topic, while at the same time the media discusses self censorship! In the end, as with the over flight of our prisoner flights, Germany “is” collaborating with us. They have too! Despite all of Schroeder BS of “Der Deutsche Weg”, “Abenteuer Irak” and other low brow emotionally charged comments that rung a good tune to the new self discovered German pan-European nationalist, in the end, Germany “sitzt im selbn Boot” with us.
The BKA and BND know who the threats are, and many have names like Mohamed. There is a reason why our prisoner flights were flying and are still flying right through Germany and with the full knowledge of those at the top. There is a reason why those at the top are blocking Green initiatives to look further into this matter. Would you believe it if I said Iraqi officers were receiving training in Germany while Schroeder was still in office? They were in Oberammergau. I do not chastise Germany for helping; I regret the political “games” that were played in 2002-2004. Of course today the political damage is done and the public opinion is lost on the matter Iraq. Furthermore the US will draw the logical force structure conclusions from this episode.
Germany will remain on the sidelines reference Iraq, but already today under Merkel we see a 180 degree turn from the position taken on Iran by Schroeder. Germany reference other issues will play a larger role and be more supportive, at least in the next few years. I am sure our prisoner flights are safe. That Germany will stand tough on Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and may even participate in other matters more. Iraq will remain taboo however. Not because it’s not part of the bigger picture, but because perceptions are reality, and the perception of Iraq is so far removed from reality and emotionally charged that one can not reasonably assume that things will change significantly over a short time.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=9772
http://www.iraqwarheroes.com/westj.htm (Bild / Maybe you can remember him?)
CPT West, you met him when you visited Friedberg was killed in action.
Talking about being overpopulated:
Well the fertillity rate in Germany is 1.39 children born/woman, the UK is at 1.66 in France it is around 1.84.
As far as I know the muslim population of France is about 6%. In the UK population there are only 2.7% muslims and in Germany 3.4%.
I think that the fertility rates of muslims (just like those of all other people) are dependent of the circumstances they are living in. I.e. Turkey has also only a fertility rate of 1.92 witch is i.e. smaller than the one of the US with 2.09. This ridicules the argument that the Muslims are much more fertile and will outnumber the existing population in Europe. The 2.4% "Turks" in Germany are by far the largest muslim etnic group in Europe. Since their natural fertility rate isn't that high anyway and it is sinking when they live long enough in Germany to the numbers that are common here there is no mathematical chance that they will reach those 15% you need for your "civil war".
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The influx of new muslim immigrants into Germany is on a all-time low in the moment due to changed laws and a changed economic situation.
Besides - It is a question of humanity and civilisation not to fall into the attitudes of the Dark Ages by expelling persons just because of their religious conviction. You know very well that the vast majority of the "Turks" that are living in Germany are decent people, that are far away from any form of terrorism. There are some foul ones - that much is true. Some may bother you because of their different looks. Anyway to put all of them into a collektive liability for something they did not commit is not just unfair, it would be simply a crime. It reminds me a littlebit of the "Madagaskar-discussion" we had in the 30ties about the German Jews who were also unfit in the public opinion to be real "Germans". It is a commonplace that the long curls of orthodox jews and their kippas were never compatible to German flags and national ceremonial just like those headscarfs will never be. I understand that somebody like you who seems to be focused on national symbols has his problems to accept such people that do not fit into his pattern. Anyway - a large part of those "Turks" was born in Germany and is living here for decades now. In the meantime they are part of our society.
Do not get me wrong - I will not compare with the nazis, but I think that your "secret hopes and imaginations" are quite dangerous. It was your party and its chancellor Adenauer that was naive enough to invite all those Turks to Germany in 1961 ("Anwerbeabkommen"). The last chance to send them back to Turkey without a bad conscience ended with the phase-out of the offical invitation in 1973 ("Anwerbestopp"). That was 33 years ago. BTW - it was also your party that is responsible for another migration desaster. The "Spätaussiedler"-wave from Russia happened because of false national responsibilities inside the CDU. Today the jobless youngsters from Russia cause all the same problems as their "Turkish" buddies.
The denial to accept the fact that Germany is a immigration country and the refusal to make a legislation to deal with this problem in our own interest (take the "good" - kick out the "bad") is a exclusive problem of the CDU since 45 years.
Really? Seriously, they behave peacefully - but decent? MOST Turks refuse to integrate. And when we speak of integration, we do not mean a "living side-by-side", we want them to become parts of the (=OUR) society. I expect immigrants to learn our language, to become familiar with our culture. And I want that their grandsons, if not their sons, feel as Germans. That´s not the case for most, and that´s what scares me. As long as their first priority is Turkey/Marocco/Algeria or whatever, they´re not integrated and could easily turn against us. I´m all for integration - and while others talk (and talk is cheap) - I´ve organised visits to mosques with discussions about the state of integration and the expectations of immigrants and ours.
There are some foul ones - that much is true. Some may bother you because of their different looks.
The only look that bothers me is the burqa or the headscarf. These are political symbols of a religious fraction that spits on our values, most notably the legal equality of women and men.
The denial to accept the fact that Germany is a immigration country and the refusal to make a legislation to deal with this problem in our own interest (take the "good" - kick out the "bad") is a exclusive problem of the CDU since 45 years.
LOL, sure. You said the last chance to send the guest workers back were 1973. Who was governing in 1973? You speak of an immigration we should have had since the beginning. But we haven´t. And the political Left wouldn´t support your view of inviting only the "good" even today. If the Greens and the left SPD-wing could, they´d open our Schengen borders within a blink of the eyes. Think of the double-citizenship! What a nightmare!
Yes, the CDU made mistakes. Letting the Ruskies in wasn´t one of them. These people are legally Germans (Art. 116 Basic Law), and we haven´t changed this article since the founding of our Republic. The faults made were, that we haven´t taken care of our immigrants, that we haven´t given them a path to integration.
So, yes, it´s at a rate of 50/100 our fault that these people "stand on the streets".
Again: I´d wish we had the backbone to send all immigrants to their home countries who ain´t willing to become Germans in the first place. Look at America, when you move there, you know that you´ll become an American first. Maybe (or mostly) you´ll be an American of German/Mexican/Vietnamese/... origin, but you´ll be a US citizen. In this perspective, I find it helpful to require an oath of allegiance for new-Germans, so that they swear to support and defend the freedom-based, democratic basic order of our Basic Law and renounce and abjure all fidelity to any foreign power.
Allowing this "living side-by-side" is like living next to a bomb that could explode in the next decades.
Dry run gone bad?
I cannot agree with you on this. AB isn´t a party member, so he probably just wanted to distance himself from the party. He also didn´t call me a Nazi, but he could also have not mentioned it. But yes, AB is still in a state of denial regarding the immigration problems.
1. http://www.mipt.org/pdf/1985pogt.pdf
Some fun reading from 1986. Guess which nations top the terrorist threat list then?
Islamic terror "began" its rise in the 1970s. Ever since then it has been a concern and issue that the West has had to deal with. The issue in all reality has only grown and even those who play the denial game as some do have taken action.
These are the facts! Even under Schroeder you saw a change to German deportation rules, listening in on Mosques, a tightening down on immigration.........
Von Kaplan - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metin_Kaplan biss zum Lauchangriff von muslemische Organizationen, neue Abschiebe regelungen...... - Waerend man aus der linken Seite des Maules von nicht existierende gespaenster Jagt von „W“ sprach, unternahm man doch schon vieles sogar inner halb Deutschland das gezielt die Islamistiche Bedrohung ansprechen sollte.
There are two types. Those that want to deal with the root of the problem and those who only want to clean up their own back yard but not deal with the true cause and origin. The latter can only be successful if others take care of the real issues in places as far away as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya...... The disease "Islamic terror" will not go away no matter how hard one tries to clean out that back yard and with the advent of the information age, proliferation of WMD technology and missiles, the open free boarders from an EU and the fall of the wall in 1989 and and and, the "status quo" is not acceptable.
The world already knew Iran to be a threat and fowl player in 1980 when Khomeini took power and began his Islamic revolution. However, in 1980 we could ignore him, isolate the threat in part, contain him so to speak and the fact that Iran and Iraq were fighting each other benefited us as well in that Iran was more focused on Iraq than spreading Islamic terror. Today we are confronted with the reality of a nuclear Iran if we do not take action. One simply can not get around the minor detail of the inevitability of a nuclear Iran and morons like Atlantic Bridge who in order to save face are left trying to rationalize doing nothing or pretending that this is not significant.
Over the years the “focus” of the Islamic terrorist has shifted and while the US has always been a top priority, even France, Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, Italy and Spain have been on their radar screen. “Today” the focus is on the US primarily because the US is the primary adversary out there pressuring Iran, killing many in Iraq and Afghanistan (Toppling the Taliban), backing Israel in their pursuit against Hezbollah, killing Abu Saeff in the Philippines etc. The US is leading the fight, and hence is on their mind today. However, that has not always been the case as it is today. Only an imbecile believes that if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone. To make my point in the 90’s there was a whole wave o Islamic based terrorist attack’s against French targets. There was a wave of bombings that rocked Paris in the early 90s, hijacking of Air France flight and even the establishment of an Algerian based terror groups. France went to great lengths to deal with the threats at this time. Of course today all eyes are on the US and an idiot like Atlantic Bridge will claim this is all an American problem.
Again, what idiots like this do not understand is that with large disenfranchised Muslim populations that do not want to assimilate, greater economic dependence on Middle Eastern oil, closer proximity, porous and large boarders in the East that are connected straight to the source of this evil, a historical hate that goes back centuries; Europe long term is facing a huge problem. It was Europe that was already in Libyan range of missiles and soon will be within range of Iran. Fact is the missiles being developed by Iran CAN NOT range the continental US, but it is probable that by the end of this decade can reach Western Europe. Why would they want to do this; to target Israel? No. They were able to do that in 1991.
If you have an ant mounds outside you front door and ants all over in your house, spraying some poison in you house makes a bit of difference, but it’s not going to fix your problem.
--
2. He is a socialist. He supports subsidies, he verbatim quoted Schroeder’s arguments and statements as his own in defense of Germany’s Iraq position and Islamic terror………. He thinks like a socialist but claims to be conservative. Schroeder said Iraq was an ‘abenteuer’ and Atlantic bridge said it was an ‘abenteuer’. On numerous occasions he just more or less cut and pasted SPD/Green party messages when it fit into his argument. On other occasions he takes a nationalist position and sets Germany first. Then he takes a EU position and wants to be supra national (After he figured out what that world meant)……… His thoughts and ideas are incoherent.
But in the meantime, I’m still waiting for GM to go broke; which is a leader in the ethanol movement. I’m still waiting for TBM’s to be demonstrated as inconsequential; especially after the N. Korean launches and Hezbollah today. I guess Merkel did not change her direction on Iran vs. Schroeder who right before leaving office stated that no military or even economic action is needed; something he said would not change. Of course the A380 was a Kassenschlager. Schroeder did not try to play the anti American card in 2005 and the SPD lost by a land slide; all things I was told would happen…….. This guy is a buffoon. His facts ‘literally’ come from Der Spiegel; a high gloss, color, big picture, magazine written at an eighth grade reading comprehension. He’s sad.
No arguement about point 1, the connections you show up cannot be denied.
But hey, it was ME telling you that the SPD would lose big 2005, it was ME saying that the A380 will be a success (and the answer is not yet out!), and I said that Schröder would not play the anti-American card, which he didn´t. He said nothing against America during the election campaign, though he presented himself as the man of peace for the Iran crisis. Fortunately, this had no effect on the election.
Yes, but Atlantic Bridge said the same stuff about the elections and much more and MUCH of it is a verbatim quote from what you read in 'Der Spiegel'. If ‘Der Spiegel’ writes it, he will quote it. Yet he’s a conservative according to him.
The hand writing was on the wall after the 2002 elections already. It was known by everyone with a clue that 2005 will at least in part see a repeat of these events since they were successful in 2002. The games shifted a bit. Instead of Iraq Schroeder harped more on Iran.
Usually the smear campaigns are not conducted by the high ranking political figure. He has to ‘appear’ above that and clean. What happens is behind the scene you have the mud slingers who are fed information and funded. In 2005 you did have: http://www.dmko.info/coffinposter.jpg
The higher level political leader usually lets the behind the scene apparatus fuel the smear campaign. He tried to pretend as if he has nothing to do with it. In the US you have the same thing. Kerry and Bush both were slinging mud like mad but a lot of this mud was not thrown by them personally.
Was it Schroeder that made the statement about “locust Capitalists”? No – but this is a typical example of how such games are played. The pretty boy in the spot light has to keep his Boy Scout image. http://www.medienkritikonline.com/aussauger.JPG
You are right in that 2005 saw less of this game and its affects were smaller as well. Nonetheless, the games were played a little and as you said, the new target of opportunity for Schroeder had shifted to Iran, where he was making statements again without consultation with anyone or without having a cohesive plan or any concessions from Iran. In a vacuum, Schroeder was dictating policy and marginalizing Germany as any constructive player in the solution to the Middle East problem.
What was Schroeder going to do in 2002/05? Tell the Volk vote for me because of the:
• Improvement in education systems
• The growing industry and GDP
• The lowering of crime rates
• The dropping unemployment
• The dropping taxes and increasing German disposable incomes
• The vast improvements of US/German relations
• Germany's rise of power in NATO
• Vast improvements in relations with Poland, and others
• The great improvements in medical insurance, retirements, etc
Was hatte er noch? Ausser sein Aussehen und begabniss Oeffentlich zu sprechen hatte er so gut wie keine Substanz.
Schroeder didn't have much else! Schroeder no shit actually stated in 2002 that the US is starting a war in Iraq to divert attention from our horrible economic situation (The whopping UNDER 6% unemployed we had). "Could" the opposite have been the case? "Could" it be that in the end it was Schroeder who politicized a growing crisis because he saw this as one of the only areas where he can gain some political momentum and at the same time will face little to no opposition? Think about it.
Look at the damage Merkel took in a political sense by standing at the US's side! When he began playing his game, few would oppose him or try to rationalize the events as they were unfolding reference Iraq. There was no political gain for the German political leader and even Stoiber made the political retreat. While it hurt the opposition, it benefited him and it did so among the liberal AND conservative constituents. Why? Because this was a calculated political move that benefited him at the expense of the US and it had no rational basis as far as being a viable Iraq solution. The German liberal was fed a “We are the peace party” line while at the same time the message was also put out to the conservatives as ‘”Der Deutsche Weg”. His position scored him points with both the liberal and more conservative minded while it took away from Merkel and Stoiber who were played up as “Ass crawlers”. It was a double whammy, and while there were other irons in the fire as well, the election was close in 2002 and this game right at the end was enough to help turn the tide in his favor. It was a calculated internal political move that ultimately drove German foreign policy and defined Germany roles in Iraq.
Think about this- Was NATO or the US consulted before this move? Did he consult with his own cabinet (The self proclaimed unilateral Schroeder)? No. Not even Fischer or Struck knew about it until after that infamous speech in 2002 in the former DDR. Schroeder more or less created German foreign policy while on the election trail. Atlantic Bridge tries to justify this. But of course he’s a conservative. And if you say this was ‘bad’ then you hate Germany according to him.
The problem with Atlantic Bridge is that he tries to defend the indefensible. If Germany were attacked tomorrow, I’d be the first to argue that we should help where and how we can. Atlantic Bridge argues that it is in Germany’s best interest to basically not help the US or do as little as possible. He ‘justifies’ backstabbing and when you call him out, he’s offended. But he also states that ‘he’ is a friend of the US. Imagine, he actually used the words of De Gaul at one point to justify his position (Nations have no friends, only interests).
It is not that I am anti-German; it is rather that Germany in 2002 turned its back on the US and he can’t accept that. He is trying to rationalize this behavior. He today is forced to pretend there is no Islamic threat. He has to pretend that there are no long range missiles or that the threat posed by them is significant. He has to pretend that Europe itself is not a long term target of the radical Islamist. He has to downplay any WMD finds, terror connection, etc in regards to the former Saddam regime. He is even forced to downplay ‘minor’ issues like suitcase bomb findings in Germany. Why, because of the positions ‘HE’ chose to take and can only hold onto at this point if he takes these at this point near proven absurd positions. He discredited himself with his own worlds. I did not choose the words he wrote in previous posts – he did.
--
On another note – Airbus ‘may’ break even eventually. They ‘may’ not have a complete flop with the A380. But one thing can be said with confidence already, the A380 will surly be no great success story.
This is a common saying here on FR, I´ve read it by many American FReepers, too, especially when it came to the US/Germany-rift.
You reproached my with defending the indefensible, when I pointed out that Germany under Schröder wasn´t fully breaching with the US. [Was your base also guarded by German soldiers while you were away?] But I wasn´t trying to excuse Schröder.
Red6, I know that you aren´t anti-German, what a ridiculous reproach.
Threats by Islamic terrorists are immanent, as we could see today. We are a target for the Islamists, and they very well want to destroy our culture. For a comment "she [a Turkish girl] behaves like a German" meant devalueing the person should be deported. We generally respect free speech, but with such a comment the person shows he disregards our society. Those people cannot and don´t want to be integrated.
Atlantic Bridge, I say it is in Germany´s interest to cooperate with our NATO partners most intensively. We share the same interests, Europe and America should not be divided. Economic competition is great, but that should not allow us to view the US other than what it is: one of our closest allies!
Using the words of De Gaul to describe a relationship that is Trans-Atlantic generally is intended to flavor the conversation in a negative way.
First off, that comment is wrong. There are aspects like "trust and culture" that go beyond shear economic or security interests. Frankly, our position with Israel from a pure interest perspective is not a good one. The cost of backing Israel, the political damage with other Arab states suffered, the enemies who have benefited from this situation (i.e. Iran, Russia etc) by far exceed what we will ever get back from Israel. Let me make this real clear - We back Israel for reasons that go beyond shear “national interests”.
Second off, that argument is typically used by those who for convenience use it. When it fits into their agenda they say “Nations have no friends, only interests”, and if they were attacked someone like this would by the largest –Schreihals- out there saying that NATO has an obligation to help Germany, that the US has an obligation to help Germany….. It is a fake moral relativistic argument again. I’m not saying that the US should not help Germany in crisis; rather my position is that “fair weather friendship” as he is trying to justify at times using the arguments of De Gaul is bogus.
--
“Economic competition is great, but that should not allow us to view the US other than what it is: one of our closest allies!” You wrote-
The problem here is that people loose focus. You can divide issues different ways. Usually people do not look at the macro level which I have spelled out numerous times.
1. International, regional and national security including citizens abroad
2. Access to strategic resources
3. Free mobility of people, idea’s, goods, and services
4. Patent and copyright protection
Of course we can break down and delve into much much greater detail on every one of those topics in itself.
If you look at ANY nation where you have a true collision of “interests” which Atlantic Bridge likes to talk about (i.e. China, Iran………) you realize that fundamentally these are the root issues. Many of the issues raised are in reality micro level issues. They are issues that are ‘politicized’ and get great levels of media publicity but are in actuality not vital. Atlantic bridge in this instance uses the “red herring” more or less.
“Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam in this example.)” http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Red%20herring
Ultimately- what happened in Germany in 2002/03 was that national election politics dictated foreign policy and international relations to include positions on alliances and international affairs in which Germany only had a marginal role to begin with (i.e. Iraq). No matter how one try’s to slice it, that was unjustifiable.
But that is water under the bridge for a discussion with you since you’re not the one trying to justify it. Looking to the future, it is important that NATO be built into the security umbrella it needs to be.
The UN is incapable, corrupt, impotent…. you name it – in regards to security concerns they fail except one other run the show and all they do is take credit for it (i.e. Haiti, Iraq 1991, Korea 1950s….). The UN is a great place to talk and tell the world what you think, distribute food to people in aid (sometimes). The UN can NOT deal with the security issues faced by the western industrialized world.
As he brings fourth hypocritical arguments of US ‘unilateral’ behavior reference Iraq, it is people like he who inherently think anti-NATO and throw out BS arguments as if the UN should have been the proponent on the Iraq issue. The UN can’t fix themselves, let alone the Iraq problem. Pointing the finger to an organization no one uses for security concerns is as ridiculous as stating NATO didn’t want to help when Germany and France block all efforts to engage NATO on this matter. NATO is the ONLY ‘multilateral’ organization which has the true structures, professionalism, and competencies to deal with the security threats we face collectively. It is again ironic that people like Atlantic Bridge put the words ‘unilateral’ in their mouth yet they want to create military structures outside of NATO control within the EU.
If everyone pulls on the rope in the same direction, we can get to a desirable outcome. The alternative is a disjointed partial effort which brings little. A true US disengagement in this war would spell catastrophe for Europe. It would be worse for Europe than for North America which is out of range, has less Muslims, and is less dependent on oil as Europe. Ironically ‘some’ who are hiding out and don’t want to do much would be those hit hardest in the long run if the US assumed exactly that position which people like Atlantic bridge wished would happen. Is France going to protect Europe with their “Grande Nation”? After all they did offer to put Germany under their nuclear protection. That’s sarcasm in case you hadn’t noticed, but an idiot like Atlantic Bridge really sees it this way! His stupidity gets greater- in part he plays the argument: “If we do nothing and say nothing the Islamist will leave us alone”. That’s pathetic, especially since this is coming from the same person who tries to see himself as: “Deutschland, wir sind wieder jemand.”
Here is my position and it has been consistent and it is not anti German: The threats to Germany’s security need dealt with, even on the footsteps of the Hindokusch as someone once correctly stated. Das ‘Status quo’ wird sich nicht halten lassen. Man kann nicht erwarten das die Vereinigten Staaten den politischen, wirtschaftlichen, und militaerichen Druck ausgestellt werden, während man in ihrem Schatten im Hintergrund die noch schlecht macht aber von ihnen profitieren möchte! Beispiel: Ueberfluege von Gefangenen. Es ist die Verteidigung dieses Blödsinns was mich sehr irritiert und wo ich auch nicht ein Blatt vor dem Mund nehme.
Die USA haben die NATO und UN gegründet gerade weil man nach dem ersten und zweitem Weltkrieg eine multilaterale und sehr intervensions orientierte Position einnahm. Man versteht das ‘Isolationism’ nicht funktionierte auch wenn man wie die USA sogar noch mit großen Ozeane getränt und fast unabhaenig war in Bezug zu Rohstoffen. Das Problem heute ist das wenige wirklich international sich für ueberhabt etwas engagieren wollen. Der durschnitliche Deutsche sieht keine Verantwortung oder sogar Verpflichtung gegen über S. Korea würde Morgen N. Korea den Süden angreifen. Man sieht keine Verpflichtung Australien zu helfen in Ost Timor usw. Aber Urlaub, Handel, usw das ist natürlich akzeptabel. Der Status ‘Schmarotzer’ ist nicht völlig aber schon großenteils angebracht fuer manche innerhalb Europa (Und Deutschland ist da noch nicht einmal so schlim in wirklichkeit in dieser Hinsicht!). Genau wie Österreich das von dem Einsatz im Balkan enorm profitierte aber sich als neutral wenig rührte, ist die Haltung mancher kaum ehrenhaft oder sogar moralisch bedingt wie unser Hellt es hier auch versucht darzustellen. Es sind lediglich ‘scheinheilige’ Argumente die einfach in dem Moment ins Kram passen und so sich schnell jedoch kaum durchdacht in seinen Wörter wieder funden.
Was haben die USA den in Ost Timor den verloren? Nichts, außer das wenn wir nicht eingreifen oder helfen würden DIES das unmoralische wäre! Das nichts tun wäre der Vertrauens Bruch mit den Australier.
http://www.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?storyID=123020899
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Astute
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1999/n09171999_9909162.html (Das war vor vielen Jahren und ich war da auch dabei.)
Ich bin ‘STOLZ’ das wir unseren Verbündeten helfen. Das ist sehr anders wie manche hier die versuchen das Handels Schroeder’s zu rechtfertigen.
Langfristig bin ich sogar für den Ausbau der NATO innerhalb dem Pazifik und auch die redefinierung dessen Rolle. Die jenigen die alles beim alten halten wollen, das sind die jenigen die wenn nötig schnell für Hilfe fragen, aber kaum freiwillig helfen wollen. Eine redefinierung der Rolle NATO erzwingt einen Lastenausgleich.
--
Das mit dem WWII ist faktisch nachvollziehbar. Man hatte unter den Alliierten Staaten einfach mehr von allem - Mehr Menschen, mehr Resourcesn, mehr Wissenschaftler, Forscher, Inginuere, und mehr Industrie. Man konnte einfach nicht mithalten in fast jeder Hinsicht. Das ist nicht ein runter putzen Deutschen Begabniss oder Fähigkeiten. Es ist einfach das Groß Britannien und die USA zusammen gerechnet viel viel mehr Potenzial hatten und wenn dies einmal richtig zum rollen Kahm, waren die Resultate schnell und hart spuehrbar.
While this may hurt, there is a lot of truth to the FACT that during WWI, WWII and the Holocaust destroyed a lot of some of the most viable male population in Germany. It’s not rocket science nor am I talking about you personally.... ....When you’re talking about total war between nations and a country fights in WWI, then has the Great Depression, then WWII where 3.5 MILLION are killed and these are the most viable stock you have, when the Holocaust kills are causes hundreds of thousands to leave (And these were productive, educated and largely even patriotic people) you have serious issues later. What you end up with is a society that has been beat down not through a pacification of some US program (Again the we are victims attitude) but rather a society where the aggressive, healthy, most capable were killed off or fled. Even after WWII Germany experienced a huge exodus of people. Werner von Braun and many others were among them. Germany pumped itself out. What you ended up with was Homo’s, the sick and weak, socialists, deserters……
You find it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1567870/posts?page=50#50"<
He defines Germany in a strict social darwinistic approach while he is obviously intellectual unable to understand Darwinism (read my answer to this BS). His conclusion of this is that he and his compatriots are the new "master-race" to rule the world (and besides of that - Germany).
Have you ever heared him to argue about "THE" German, "THE" everlasting Frog, "THE" Brit, "THE" Pole etc. etc. etc. I had the strange privilege to know some real nazis from back then. They used exactly the same arguments and exactly the same verbalism Red6 does. It makes me sick if I even think about it.
There are many different attempts to define nazism. Most people here see its economic "socialist" part as its major feature, because they can declare this ideology then as "leftist". We both know that this is BS. The major feature of nazism is its scorn of human beings and human life.
If your read the posts of Red6 he often said that Germany and the US have all the same interests and therefore it is the basic duty of Germany to back everything the US are doing. Although we share indeed some concerns, there are many things we Germans do not want to mix in because of our well-understood own interests. I.e. It is true that I (like most of my compatriots) have mixed feelings about the sense of the Iraq war. I see the elimination of Saddam Hussein as a justified reason for the war (as a humanitarian aim), while I do not believe into the officially pleaded reasons for this war like (irrelevant or not existing) WMDs. While I understand that violence is necessary to enforce the security of a nation (like Israel contra Hamas) I do not approve the use of millitary force to accomplish economic interests. Furthermore I will never back the excessive use of violence against civillians. I.e. I can not understand that it shall be just to hunt terrorists with air raids in a occupied country. Imagine our millitary bombard Hamburg with 1.800 kg (guided or not) bombs in a terrorist round-up without any warning. We would never do that and the Americans would not do it in New York either. Those 12 year old boys on the streets of Bagdad are well aware of that and they also know that their lives are just second-rate to the west. This is dangerous and it is indeed a crazy "Abenteuer" to me, since their hate will fall back on the United States sooner or later. I am sure that the outcome of this war will not help to contain terror although it helped the Iraqies to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It is rather the start of a new vicious circle of terror and violence.
If we talk soley about German interests - like Red6 proposes - the question will be what we can do for OUR country there.
1. Our security situation will be worse if we go into Iraq since we would make ourselves a target for the hate of those younsters that grow up in Sadr-City and elsewhere now. The existance of the US-bases on our soil is dangerous enough if we see it from that point of view.
2.Our economic relationship to Iraq is already excellent. The import partners of Iraq are:
Turkey 25%, U.S. 11.1%, Jordan 10%, Vietnam 7.7%, Germany 5.6%, Australia 4.8%.
Source:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm<
BTW- It is quite funny to me that many of the key coalition members obviously have no economic benefit from their huge investments (i.e. the US buy 53.4% of the Iraqi oil and spend millions and bazillions there and their export quote is really not that impressive if we compare it with their efforts - not to speak about the UK or Poland).
3. The relatonship to the US would be better, on the other hand we would still be the unconditional vassals of America. The undiplomatic "no" of Schroeder has the positive effect, that we emancipated us for the first time from the omnipotent US after WWII. That overdue step (no matter if it was made by that moron Schroeder or not) opened us the way to our own independent policy. Somebody who defines his own policy can do it again in another situation. Politically the outcome is not that bad, since -after the change to Merkel- America knows that they have friends in central Europe but no viewlessly idiots with slavish obedience. Something fundamental happened in the trans-atlantic relationship.
4. If Saddam Hussein would have owned some Sarine warheads would they have been a threat to Germany? No.
Therefore: The only reason for our participation would be humanitarian. So we come back to the question of the beginning of this circle - is this a war that was fought because of humanitarian reasons?
Red6 does not care about humanitarian things, he cares about interests. Just listen to his argumentation. He does not care about human beings or human life. This is the reason why I think that his thinking is simular to the one of the nazis. A certain form of selfish and brutal primitivism. His stance towards Germany is dominant. He want to see Germany as a submissive protectorate of America. Something de facto occupied with a obedient puppet government.
This is the reason why I confirm my statement again: He is a Gesinnungsnazi. Period. Somebody who is malign. His intention towards Germany is negative. And - to say it frankly - somebody I do not want to see in our country.
Nevertheless he is too ridicolous to care about, since he represents only a small and completely irrelevant fraction of Americans. America is a great nation with great people that carry the light of freedom around this world. Maybe they made faults like we do, but the intention of most of them is good. They learn from their faults and they are able to listen. This is their difference to Red6. This is why America is a friendly nation to Germany and Americans are friendly to Germans. Anyway the relationship has to be redefined in many points since most of the old parameters changed. It is contraproductive to stick to old things that are overdue since they only raise false expectations on both sides of the Atlantic.
Tatsache ist-
Deutschland ist selbst ein Ziel auch wenn dies nicht in deiner freireligoesen Weltanschauung rein passt. Diene Trennung von Staat und Religion ist nicht die Weltanschauung des Islamisten der den Staat auf der Sharia basiert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
Ich verachte dich nur weil du in Heuchler bist, jedoch der Islamist würde dir gerne die Kehle durchschneiden nur weil du ein nicht gloebiger bist.
--
Deine Mischung von Grünen Argumente, selbst lob, jedoch feige Position Referenz Irak wird alt. Wieder hören wir in deinem Argument das ‘kein Blut für Öl’ Schwachsin, natürlich etwas verschleiert. Wieder müssen wir hören über wie Iran, Irak, AQ, Hezzbollah nicht veknuepft ist. Wieder müssen wir hören über keine WMD und das dies das einzigste Argument war und dies völlig als falsch sich erwiesen hat. Und natürlich müssten wir wieder hören das ein Krieg falsch ist weil es Kolateralschaeden gibt. Habe ich einer deinen großen neuen tief greifenden Argumente verpasst?
Steck dein Kopf in den Sand, strecke dein Arsch in die Luft, du gefällst deinen Islamistichen Brüder so mehr.
"Schlappschwanz" is written with two p. No real criticism here, since my bad English is not better than your German. :-)
Just play a little virtual game with me: Imagine litte Red6 (now 14 years old) growing up in Sadr-City as part of a nice and decent muslim family. Then some bad guys in his neigbourhood have to be eliminated by the heroic USAF. Stupidly the JDAM GBU-31 does not hit bad bad Muqtada as-Sadr, but the family of little Red6. Regretfully his parents, the three little sisters, both brothers and his home are collateral damage. After all he is able to find some tissue samples to have a nice rememberance.
Now answer me the following question:
a) Will little Red6 join the heroic Army of new Iraq to fight bad bad Muqtada as-Sadr? Will he understand that the heroic USAF was justified in killing his family and in destroying his existance because of bad bad Muqtada as-Sadr?
b) Will he join bad bad Muqtada as-Sadr?
I do not know if such a limited character like you is able to understand that there are things on this planet that do not have a millitary solution, since this has nothing to do with impotence but with intelligence. To make it easier to understand for you: We also could say that you suffer from brain impotence. The bad news for you is that even Viagra (although it is a heroic American product) will not help in this case. :-(
All things have to be effective if they shall leave a profit. Sometimes it is just too expensive (no matter if we talk about money our lives) to push trough a certain policy against others at all means. I.e. I would prefer that Sudan is a free, prosperous and democratic country. But to sacrifice 25.000 German soldiers and 350 billion German Euros for it? No way. That is simply not worth the price. I will tell you a new German word for it (ask Michael if you do not understand): "Gueterabwaegung" with Umlaut: "Güterabwägung". You also could say pragmatism. That realisation does not hurt, it is simply logical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
