The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
The People Who Brought Us the Holocaust...
...are maybe trying to finish it off? If this is true, it's creepy:
A LEBANESE hijacker [Mohammed Ali Hammadi] who was jailed for life for the murder of a US Navy diver has been set free, prompting speculation that he was part of an exchange deal to secure the release of a German hostage in Iraq.
(German hostage Susanne Osthoff was released earlier this week.)
Let's do a recap: Germany tries to wipe every Jew off the planet. They near succeed, and drive the ones they didn't murder to the Middle East, where they are surrounded by people who want to wipe them off the planet. And now, rather than leave bad enough alone, Germany releases an Islamofascist prisoner, knowing full well that he will again try to wipe every Jew (and actually, every other infidel, including Germans) off the planet.
Plus ca change...
Cross-posted at Wonkitties.
Posted by wonkitties on December 21, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The People Who Brought Us the Holocaust...:
Seems as though where the numbers of Muslim grow the IQs drop proportionatly.
Even their cars are getting shittier these days.
How long before they start marketing the BMW Camelero?
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-21 9:25:29 PM
Spineless bleeding heart does not equal Nazi. This is totally unfair - the Germans, like the French, lack courage when it comes to combating terror, but they aren't pursuing a policy aimed at killing Jews.
Posted by: markdsgraham | 2005-12-22 12:58:55 AM
France and Germany should be fighting with US in Irak. They will pay the price if they do not get involved in the global war against terrorism and Islamofacists.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-12-22 7:07:55 AM
Sadly the Germans side with the Palistinians and any of the Muslim head-choppers over the Israelis, the US and the rest of us Infidels. When I talk to my brother living in Germany, I'm shocked at his anti-US, anti Israel , pro-head-chopper views! This from a guy who grew up in Alberta, but sadly 15 years of socialist bar-nut brain-washing have turned him. Now he's just another Euro-Wienie turning the other cheek to the Muslim terrorists. Sad.....
Posted by: Slim | 2005-12-22 9:52:30 AM
Mark is right. As someone who despises the German government's anti-Americanism and duplicity in the War on Terror, I can still acknowledge that few countries have ever done as much as Germany has to confront a terrible past -- certainly not Japan, nor Russia, nor China. I think you should re-consider this ridiculous post and offer your apology in an update. If I want to hear uninformed opinions like this, I can listen to my "Bush = Hitler" workmates.
Posted by: surly | 2005-12-22 11:09:29 AM
Not quite sure what is going on in this blog for the last couple of weeks, but it seems the election is bringing out all the hatred towards... Well whatever.
The ignorance that is in this posting is just mind boggeling, Germany HAS participated in the "War on Terror" (right, because it will go so much better than the war on drugs).
Unlike the US they actually DID try to convict one of the suspects of the 9/11 attacks, but guess what, the US who claims to have the information necessary to lock the guy up for the rest of his life decided NOT to give the information to the Lawyers, because it was deemd "top secret".
The German Government took TWO runs at it, and in both cases the courts didn't find the necessary proof that he was guility and the judge refused ot "take the amerians word" for it. Yeah, call it weakness if you like, but I rather have a legal system that is truly "blind" when it comes to making judgement than one that is bending to popular opinion or the people in power.
As for the state of Israel: Jewish people WANTED their own state for a very long time and they wanted it in THAT area, so don't try to blame Germany for the state of Israel being put in that location. But I wager a guess and in your opinion instead of having a Germany the land should have become Israel?
Posted by: Oh Geez, make it stop | 2005-12-22 1:12:07 PM
This is pure hate mongering of the lowest form and has no place in civilized discussions about ideas.
Germany and even more so France have had numerous terrorist attacks in their countries way before 9/11.
They argued that attacking Iraq was not in the interests of combating terrorists and I believe history will prove them right. This is not in any way a defence of the Saddam regime, but Iraq had no WMD but plenty of oil.
There are countless countries with terrible regimes that should be taken out, but none of them gets the USA 's attention like Iraq, does anyone really believe that the huge oil reserves in Iraq are coincidental to the USA's presence?
Posted by: David | 2005-12-23 6:39:13 AM
That argument has been addressed ad nauseum. The oil in Iraq is germaine, but only insofar as it has funded a tyrant's genocidal ambitions. If you disagree with a policy of democratizing tyrannies, tackle the argument on that level, instead of resorting to the tired and demonstrably false assertion that "they did it all for oil."
Posted by: surly | 2005-12-23 8:32:35 AM
You mean germane as in relevant? All I'm saying is there are plenty of tinpot dictatorships around with horrendous records on human rights for the US to invade if that's the real motive, but their declared motive was WMD aimed at the US. I didn't say it, Colin Powell showed the pictures at the UN, turns out they were fishing rod canisters and he has apologized and quit.
They could have invaded Bosnia or Rwanda, hundreds of thousands were killed there, but there is no oil in Bosnia or Rwanda, so happens there is in Iraq, and lots of it. Pure coincidence though and I can't bring up a tired and false assertion, I can't prove it but I still have my suspicions.
Posted by: David | 2005-12-23 4:28:41 PM
Bosnia and Rwanda were not threats to the US or the free world in general ..whether they have oil or not. Most othe 'tin pot' you mention are small, weak and horrible. They are busy killing each other and can't afford global activity ..so they can be considered when the bigger fish are fried.
Iraq happens to be the country in the "middle east" where like Surly said .. oil wealth is being used against us. You are one of us aren't you?
The only way to stop this threat is to either nuke them away to glowing dust or try to bring that huge region into the mainstrean world and civilize them somewhat. Iraq was the most viable place to begin the process.
It's right in the center of it and is an inflential country with the potential to become a viable democracy where it's people will be able to finally enjoy what you enjoy David .. the freedom to speak on whatever you wish without being killed by your dictatorial government. Like Canada, they have the natural resource to SELL to rest of world to build their economy.
Is this so hard a concept to understand?
An puleez don't hand me the moral equivalency argument. The Muslim world is not equivalent to the modern 'civilized' world that you and I inhabit.
Posted by: Duke | 2005-12-23 5:27:17 PM
You guys are going to have to make up your mind exactly why Iraq was invaded. Bush said it was WMD, that was admitted to have been based on ''bad intelligence''.
Then you say it was because Saddam was an evil tyrant killing and enslaving his own subjects, when I point out there are lots of evil tyrants out there, you now say that Iraq ( and the whole Middle East) was using its oil wealth against us and rather than nuke them all we had to start somewhere and civilize them somehow. Am I getting your argument correctly?
Because if that's your whole argument in a nutshell and your question of ''are you one of us?''I sense the BIG worldwide conspiracy theory here whereby the Muslim world is plotting to take ""us"" over, I guess I do have a hard time understanding your concept.
I remember the domino theory that led to the Vietnam war, this one sounds familiar, lots of people believed that one too. Lucky for us they didn't drag Canada into that war. Lucky for us again Canada as a whole didn't fall for the WMD theory put before the UN.
Posted by: David | 2005-12-24 2:40:36 PM
David: As a member of the Vast right wing conspiracy, I must warn you that you are treading on dangerous ground...(don't mention the p_ _ _ word)...it's for your own good.
And another thing, WMD was a reason, but it wasn't the only reason...there can be multiple reasons for going to war...even left wing-nuts like yourself can see that, no ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-24 4:17:18 PM
I appreciate you not rubbing in my silly spelling mistake even after I responded so harshly to you.
About the WMD, Saddam had them, he used them, and he refused to account for stocks that the whole world thought he must still have. If your criticism is that the US used WMD as a smoke screen to overthrow a tyranny, well, as Mark Steyn would say, I'm pretty relaxed about that. If you're saying that they used WMD as a smoke screen to rape Iraq of its oil, I'd say, so where's all this oil then?
Don't forget that a similar argument was made about Afghanistan -- in that case the US was said to be invading to acquire territory to build an oil pipeline.
By the way, the domino theory was sound. Communists are notoriously expansionist and not very nice, as the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered by the victorious North would tell you, if only they could.
Posted by: surly | 2005-12-24 4:35:19 PM
So now I'm a left wing nut for objecting to going to war on trumped up charges. I agree there can be lots of reasons, its just that none of them apply to Iraq. Ranting about people who don't agree with your analysis doesn't add an iota of credibilty to your argument, youre going to have to do better than that.
You ask where is all the oil, the answer is in the ground in Iraq, thus securing the US supply for the future, was that really a serious question ? Do you think any Iraqi oil will ever be for sale to say China?
If the domino theory was so sound it never came up after the humiliating defeat the US suffered in Vietnam, about 20 years after the French had also suffered a humiliating defeat there.
Posted by: David | 2005-12-24 5:28:42 PM
Please reread your argument. At the time of the decision to invade, Bush, acting with the intelligence that he had at the time, determined that the next threat would arise from Iraq.
Besides Hussein's previous/prior possession and use of WMD, his decision to kick out the UN inspectors and the now obvious objections by France and Germany (can we say Oil for Food scandal), Bush believed that not to act would be paramount to inviting further attacks on the US (anywhere, Africa, Europe, etc).
His pre-emptive approach (which by the way is an acceptable reason to attack by UN standards -- if you don't believe me then I'll have to go and look but trust me a nation is able to attack another if it is meant to be pre-emptive in nature) now is easily seen to be wrong (hindsight being 20-20 and all), but know what we know (and remember there is still lots that we don't know) I think that Bush weighed his options, and in light 911, deemed it an imminent threat.
Something that MANY,MANY Canadians still have not grasped is that in today's world, security outweighs everything. In fact, if there is another Republican president, I wouldn't be surprised if there really isn't a wall built along the US/Canada border. And I would also be worried about trade with the US. The US would close the border in a moment if they thought that keeping the border open (even for trade) was a threat. I sure hope that whoever is the next Canadian government understands that.
Ed the Hun
Posted by: EdtheHun | 2005-12-24 7:38:52 PM
David: Ranting ? Ranting ? You want ranting ? Nah...just referred to your left wing perspective. So you think that the U.S. had no right to invade Iraq ? (Can't believe we still have to go over this) After how many UN resolutions were ignored by Saddam ? They had the right to attack after he ignored just 1, rather than the 14 or 15...that was part of the agreement from his surrender from the Gulf war. So give it up, with France not wanting to attack it was about the oil. That has been made very clear! Merry Christmas!
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-24 9:43:03 PM
The impasse between the anti-war and the pro-democracy people reminds me of something Bob Dylan said, half-jokingly, years ago, something about how he'd wrecked music: Back when, he pointed out, the greatest songwriters wrote songs, and the healthiest, happiest birds sang them, and the most adept instrumentalists provided the perch, as it were. But after Bob, everyone holding a guitar suddenly felt himself both a philosopher king and a musical genius. (If you've ever seen Barry McGuire singing "Eve of Destruction", you'll know that Eddie Vedder didn't).
But just as Barry McGuire is not a biblical-scale thinker, neither are the "hey, where are the WMD's" crowd. Their most obvious and unadressed blind/bald/wet-spot is that they don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people. They express no support at any time for the Iraqi people's right to choose their own government, and they call for those who have put their lives at risk to enable such an achievements to cease and desist.
In Vancouver I talked to quite a few Persian and Arab cabdrivers from Iraq and Iran. To a man they have more of a heart towards freedom and democracy than any twenty anti-war activists combined, and as such, they should not be subject to them.
Posted by: EBD | 2005-12-25 2:13:22 AM
MarkAlta, I believe it was 17 UN resolutions that were passed and ignored by Saddam Hussein.
David, you seem outraged at the unsubstantiated possibility that the US is only interested in a secure supply of oil, but have no remarks about the UN oil-for-food scandal. Why is no one screaming "no blood for oil" in regards to these people or accusing them (with more evidence) of caring only about oil profits - rather than the Iraqi people?
You also wrote that you sense a "BIG world conspiracy of the muslim world plotting to take US over" and that you don't buy that.
Have you listened to anything the leader of Iran has said lately about wanting to annihilate the US and Israel? Can you imagine the world outcry if Bush had stated publicly that he wanted to annihilate every Iraqi person? We live in an age where barely anyone notices Iran, al queda, and various other islamofascist organizations publicly stating their desire to attack us (the US, Canada, Britain, Aussies...i.e. the West), but there is constant discussion about how nobody has found where Saddam hid the WMDs that he definitely used on the Iraqi people.
Regardless of your position on the strategic value of invading Iraq, it is indisputable that Bush has demonstrated more concern for the welfare of Iraqi people than the UN or so-called anti-war peace activists.
Posted by: Angela | 2005-12-25 3:38:27 PM
What difference does it make who the Iraqis sell their oil to? Are you saying that the Iraqi oil that you say only the US will be allowed to buy is better on some atomic level than whatever oil the Chinese might buy? Are you saying that the US will have any say in the matter of who the Iraqi government, or private Iraqi companies, sell their oil to? Are you ignorant of the fact that if the US could somehow force oil companies to sell only to them, the resulting shortages in other countries would drive world oil prices into the stratosphere? Could the US force their suppliers to maintain a low price? How? Have they ever attempted this before, with oil or any other commodity? And you call me unserious?
I take it you take great pleasure in the US defeat in Vietnam, a pleasure that all the victims and refugees of the communists are unlikely to share, but I'm sure your opinions will be vindicated when the US begins the rape of Iraq, just as in the past it has raped post-war Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia and Afghanistan.
Cheer up, mate. You and your type have lost this round, but for every George Bush there will always be another Saddam for you to cheer for.
C'mon, admit it. You kinda like that new Iranian president, don't you?
Posted by: surly | 2005-12-25 3:47:13 PM
I take no joy whatsoever in the Vietnam war results. What bothers me is that there seems to be nothing learnt from that tragedy, I never said nor implied US rape of Iraq, all I said was how curious it seems to be that a country with immense oil reserves gets all that American attention while others without oil but with terrible dictators are totally ignored.
As the only contrarian on this thread I seem to get a lot of really aggressive answers, all lot of false accusations about my opinions and an awful lot of '' were right cause we say we are'' type of reactions. I just want to remind those of you who talk about waging war like it was something to watch on TV, there are huge costs involved for all and deciding to kill and maim thousands, including thousands of your own people, should not be made on ''bad intelligence''.
The arguments I am hearing are while it may have been bad intelligence, so what its a good thing to take out a bad guy. I disagree and I am convinced that some day I will be proved right, just like in Vietnam. Does that make me a cheerleader for Saddam or the Iranian president? Your world is so blavk or white, youre either with us or against us arguments are intellectually thin.
Does anyone really doubt that the Americans now control Iraqi oil and will do so for a long time?
Posted by: David | 2005-12-26 8:33:22 AM
David: Who says you are right about Vietnam ? I happen to think that the Iraqi's control their oil...what makes you think the U.S. controls Iraq's oil ? Does China control Canada's oil ? Not yet anyway...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-26 7:41:44 PM
History seems to say I am right about Vietnam. You think Iraq controls its oil or you want to think it does? There are 200,000 US soldiers in Iraq and countless US petroleum companies, including Haliburton.
Posted by: David | 2005-12-27 5:25:25 AM
I bet the South Vietnamese don't agree with you about Vietnam, but the North koreans probably do. Are the South Koreans wrong ? What about the Cuban Missile Crisis ? Was Kennedy wrong on that one ?
Do you think those soldiers have anything to do with the security and rebuilding of Iraq, maybe ?
Or are they busy working on oil rigs ?
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2005-12-27 10:48:14 AM
If we seem aggressive, it's because some of us have indeed learned the lesson of Vietnam -- that little is more important to the Leftist than his own feelings of moral superiority, not even the fate of innocent men, women and children slaughtered by tyrants. You will say that's hyperbole, but read Fisk, Dyer, Margolis, Moore or the website of International ANSWER and show me why I'm wrong.
By the way, there was no oil in Vietnam, South Korea or Bosnia. As for why "acts of genocide" never quite equated with "genocide", triggering US action in Rwanda, you'd have to take that up with Bill Clinton, or with Jean Chretien, for that matter.
Posted by: surly | 2005-12-27 1:06:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.