Israel

[Kraken]

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice
Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Hartmut Lau translated the article for us.

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice
Commentary by Mathias Döpfner

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe – your family name is appeasement." It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century�a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary�we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy�because everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.

<span style='color:red'>http://abcnews.go.com/International/sto ... ge=1</span>

[Devari]

Heh.

[The Beatles]

That is rich, about the country which joined both World Wars only when it was necessary to protect its economic interests.

Wake up: Europe is not combating an Islamic threat because it doesn't face an Islamic threat. The only country endangered is the UK (as it follows US foreign policy) and it is taking measures. As for supporting regimes, don't give me the American high-ground after Nicaragua, Afghanistan, or Chile. Or Iraq, before they were turned on.

All I have to say about Reagan is that he had Alzheimer's at the end of his tenure, and Bush is hardly better.

Minor note to the translator: England was not a participant of the Second World War. The UK was. Scotland had the highest industrial production of the home nations until 1940.

Full rebuttal if you like later.


PS I'm all in favor of morality in politics, but no current main-stream government practices this, merely pretends to. (No, neither does Canada.)

[bjornredtail]

What about the riots in France, the Madrid rail bombings, the murder of Theo van Gogh? Are these not evidance of a growing Islamic threat in Europe?

[The Beatles]

Growing, perhaps, but not really if you consider sheer proportion. The US has "growing" Islamic problems, but they're still minor compared to what Islamic extremism is doing in other areas of the world -- Middle and Far East, Africa, etc. So I would not say European countries in general have an Islamic problem.

Also, I think every nutjob who happens to be Arabic is going to be identified (or will identify himself with) some radical ideology or other just because of the current climate. Even if he was just a nutjob who happened to be Arabic.

[Devari]

PS I'm all in favor of morality in politics, but no current main-stream government practices this, merely pretends to. (No, neither does Canada.)

I never claimed that. Besides, there has been no great Government in Canada in my lifetime, especially not right now.

I, similarly, find that piece rich. Rather old, that one, actually.

One particular thing, Tony Blair is a social democrat now?!

[Kraken]

Full rebuttal if you like later.

*laughs*, wrong about Reagan *laughs*. you really know nothing about the man do you? and dear me, it got a rise out of you eh?
Europe did not participate in WWII eh? *laughs*. i guess they were too busy getting goose stepped on to notice. *laughs*.
do some reading that is outside of Wikipedia dear Beatles! *laughs*! anyone can contribute to Wiki and, dear me, what a source!
move back to Europe everyone! tis safe and the rag heads havent touched it!!!!
OMG!
*laughs*
*laughs*
*laughs*
*laughs*
WHAT A RESPONSE!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2326083&page=1 did anyone click on the linky?

[bjornredtail]

do some reading that is outside of Wikipedia dear Beatles! *laughs*! anyone can contribute to Wiki and, dear me, what a source!

For that matter, anyone can contribuate to Linux.. What an OS!
Or, anyone can contribuate to FAF... What a game!

Europe did not participate in WWII eh? *laughs*. i guess they were too busy getting goose stepped on to notice.

England != Europe, just as USA != North America...

Minor note to the translator: England was not a participant of the Second World War. The UK was. Scotland had the highest industrial production of the home nations until 1940.

Up until that point, Germany was bombing English industry rather heavily. Scotland would be out of the effective range of Nazi bombers and thier fighter escorts. Hence, it would make sence that the area would have more industrial production...

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2326083&page=1 did anyone click on the linky? wink.gif

Indeed I did...

I really don't see how a North Korean nuclear test changes much of anything. China is still going to be thier quazi-ally, the rest of the world is going to dislike the Regime just a little bit more and the UN will pass another resoulation. That's all that will come of it, at lest in the short term.

[Devari]

A) Wikipedia is a very good first-stop source. There is no real reason to doubt the reliability and accuracy of a well-maintained article. Of course, it isn't particularly great beyond an introductory source, but it never claimed to be that. I personally find it far superior to commercial encyclopedias such as Britannica, if only because it is dynamic and any new information is accessible (i.e. You don't have to wait for a new version, and you don't have to pay a ridiculous fee for a new version).
Beatles does read beyond Wikipedia. I can see that from not only his debate posts, but also personal correspondence/discussions I have had with him and evidence from the Shoutbox.
C) I would argue that Wikipedia is far less likely to be pushing a POV than just about any other source. Because of the community-maintained nature of the articles, Wikipedia has an army of people who clean up articles to maintain neutrality.
D) Just about all of the "exterior reading" that you link to seems to be articles or opinion pieces that support your viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that, but I personally favor gathering facts from a close-to-neutral source and forming my opinions around that, rather than reading what is essentially propaganda. I'm sure you would find that Beatles does the same.
E) I have no problem with opinion pieces (although I find many quite funny [or perhaps simply sad]). However, I do object to presenting opinion pieces as solid facts, and then attacking people for using different sources to form their opinions. Frankly, even if Wikipedia was a horribly biased Left-Wing Love-In (which it most certainly is not!), formulating a worldview from a source like that would be no worse than formulating a worldview from opinion pieces such as you have supplied.


Disclaimer: This is not meant to cause any offence. I am most certainly not attacking you, just stating my opinions/observations on the matter. Besides, we all love the Kraken, his pride in being American[1], and his stinky, stinky cheese.

[1] I'm being serious, not sarcastic. Pride in who you are is admirable.

[edit] Thrice-damned cool guy smiley messing up my list.

[The Beatles]

Oh, I forgot to add, Bjorn, that the terrorists' stated goal is to eradicate Israel, and the US for supporting Israel. (And the UK for supporting the US. No doubt the Cook Islands for supporting the UK, but never mind that just now.) That is another reason that Europe cannot really be considered to be under an Islamic extremist threat: they have largely not taken a side in the conflict, not a coherent or strong one anyway.

Yes, Nev, England bore the brunt of the casualties and damage. I was just pointing out that as a separate political entity it didn't exist at the time. This usually betrays unfamiliarity on the part of the writer with the UK, which does not exactly inspire confidence in them to write about Europe, for instance.

Side note, are you disputing Reagan had Alzheimer's by the end of his tenure? (FDR was also pretty weak by the end of his tenure, but at least he actually did something.) Or if you have any objection to what I posted, how about a rational counterargument?

[Nuclear Raunch]

Quick quasi-OT question, has anyone here seen the documentary, "Why We Fight"?

[Kraken]

beatles, Reagan did not have alzhiemers while he was president. why even bring it up?

*laughs*!

now, for the Islam v/s Israel and US and UK in that succesion! thee are blind! *laughs*.

THey hate the west and anyone who ISNT ISLAMIC! you infidel! *laughs*!

[Freenhult]

Most of the Islamic factions that dislike the US and UK dislike us because we are not muslim and we support a culture that goes against the Koran. When we support Israel, the only thing we are doing is giving them one more reason on top of many for them to try and cleanse and convert us. These people don't give a hoot about how we give money to try and help them. Heck, some of that Pakistani Earthquake Aid, we sent was preportedly use to help fund these latest terror threats.

And yes...Europe should be consider under Islamic Terrorist Threat. England has one of thee highest % of muslims for a non-muslim country. If anything were to happen, our good friends in England are dead and done. Most of them probably aren't even bad, but lord knows how many of them could be sleeper cells. And they could be anywhere. In England, France, the rest of Europe or somewhere like Nebraska. Anywhere, anytime...so Europe is under the same strain as the US and England. If they want to ignore it, they can watch more trains blow up.

Straight from the wiki entry... "He was the only U.S. President to be shot by an assassin (on March 30, 1981) while in office and survive. He received a state funeral after his death in Bel-Air, California, in 2004 at age 93, after suffering from Alzheimer's disease for a decade." Reagan served (1981–1989) so...Beatles if Right here.

EDIT: Ugh... Fox News but yeah. Other countries need to be prepared.

[The Beatles]

Many people seem to think that:
1. All Muslims are terrorists.
2. The terrorists want to destroy anyone non-Islamic.

If that's true, why weren't they a problem until the State of Israel was formed? And don't forget, they didn't give the British Empire much trouble either. There were rebels, sure, but those were just tribesmen. The organized terrorist movement as such emerged in the wake of 1948.

Europe is not under an Islamic threat. And Freen, England isn't a country. The British Muslims have repeatedly distanced themselves from the terrorists in word and action (one of the recent suspects even came from an aristocratic all-white family!). The UK is just multicultural, due to the Commonwealth. (I bet Canada has a lot of Muslim immigrants too?)

In the West, we may abhor many practices of Islam, but that is no reason to immediately label every Muslim a terrorist. A large Muslim minority is a good, not bad thing.

[Freenhult]

Many people seem to think that:
1. All Muslims are terrorists.
2. The terrorists want to destroy anyone non-Islamic.

1) Well, I wonder why? Perhaps if a bunch of Christians started suicide bombing all over the world, people might think that all Christains were terrorists.
2) Yeah, the terrorists do. Thats why they are terrorists. Not all Islamic people want this, just the crazy terrorists.

If that's true, why weren't they a problem until the State of Israel was formed? And don't forget, they didn't give the British Empire much trouble either. There were rebels, sure, but those were just tribesmen. The organized terrorist movement as such emerged in the wake of 1948.

I'm going to assume that the reason why is because the British Empire had either a
1) Let them do their crazy thing policy
2) Had enough of a presence to keep things under control. Plus, it might not be, but radical Islam seems to have picked up a ton in the last few decades.

Europe is not under an Islamic threat.

HOW NOT! Your right, the terrorists have Europe in complete fear. They won't raise a finger against them. >_>

And Freen, England isn't a country. The British Muslims have repeatedly distanced themselves from the terrorists in word and action (one of the recent suspects even came from an aristocratic all-white family!). The UK is just multicultural, due to the Commonwealth. (I bet Canada has a lot of Muslim immigrants too?)

Uh...The UK? What ever, England was a country. Plus, when I say England, I mean the UK anyway. And I seriously doubt that they have. There isn't a British version of Islam, so they are all connected there. As for cultural differences, granted. And yes Beatles, Doesn't it worry you that an aristocrataic home? He had a good life, and he was willing to die. That...Is scary. And I bet Canada has an average amount.

In the West, we may abhor many practices of Islam, but that is no reason to immediately label every Muslim a terrorist. A large Muslim minority is a good, not bad thing.

True enough.