Is it all Europes fault

R

rallyhound

New member
Courtesy of Gen Carl Schneider.....



Strong words from Germany

Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 08:22:01 -0400

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publishing house
Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT (The
World), Germany's largest daily newspaper, against the timid reaction of
Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in WELT AM SONNTAG (Sunday World):
"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 toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union,
then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for
decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as
the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and
even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans
debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally
the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet
again, and do 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 nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated
by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue
bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest
critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS
of billions, in the corrupt UN. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are
faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement... How is
Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists
in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a
"Muslim Holiday" in Germany.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German
people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical
Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain
waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolf Hitler, and declaring
European "Peace in our time".

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, directed against our free, open Western societies,
and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an
enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is
actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for
anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble
over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand:
Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from
nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only
by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the
danger in the Islamic War 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 those
"arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "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, so devoid of a moral compass.

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 unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes
what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because
they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social
Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather
discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4
weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need
to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands,
frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber
breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
 
Thanks for posting that excellent article ! Socialist Europe has other related problems. They are not risk takers in business -the MP3 music system was invented by a german who couldn't find a german company to make it, he had to come here. The economy is stagnant with little or no growth.People are lazy , waiting for the gov't to do everything .
 
Threats and punishment don't work on Muslims. They are wired differently from the rest of us. They kill and destroy indiscriminately, including their own kind. Women and children, makes no difference to them.

Does anyone seriously think that the four (born in the UK) London bombers wouldn't have used nuclear bombs if they'd had them? Of course they would have, they'd be just as dead themslves and wouldn't care a damn.

The point is that our governments (The West) need to protect us. That's their job. They need to be told what to do.
Firstly, get rid of all Muslims in our societies. Export them and quarantine them and let no more in, ever.

Serious measures? You bet!
Serious consequences if we don't? You bet!

Let our common agricultural pest control policies provide the guidelines. If there are any 'good' Muslims it's just their bad luck. They are part of that herd and it's got Mad Cow Disease.
 
Blue Heeler

I am tempted.... so VERY tempted, to agree with you. BUT, remembering what happened at the beginning of WWII makes me hesitate. If you'll remember, anti-Japanese sentiment resulted in internment camps of all Japanese American citizens in an anti-Japanese frenzy. Many of these people were very patriotic to the US, but were put behind fences, and families were split up. Some later became some of the fiercest fighting units the US ever had. Today, I have a Muslim officer that works for me. He was born a Turk, and is one of the finest and most compassionate officers on the dept. Admittedly, he says he is not a practicing Muslim, but he grew up in a strong Muslim household. Earlier, in another thread, I posted that I didn't know who my enemy was. This stands, and it's mainly because of him. I think it important to judge by individuals, even though I really don't understand the Muslim religion. I think that, when the End comes someday, they will also be judged as individuals, and some will pay a horrible price.
 
Last edited:
I see your point of view Capt Charlie. I also know a Muslim and he seems OK and isn't a shirker. But that's the very problem. Not all the cows in the herd are infected, but what is the option? It's like chemotherapy, it kills good cells as well as bad, and sometimes produces a cure. No treatment on the other hand produces no cure, and the result is usually death.

Maybe there's a chance, a very slim chance, that the 'good' Muslims can police their own and kill the snakes? I'd give them a year to try - otherwise it's the chemo.
 
Maybe there's a chance, a very slim chance, that the 'good' Muslims can police their own and kill the snakes? /
Let's talk snakes for a minute . Suppose you could convince a group of your friends that (and this is a fact) only 2% of snakes are deadly . They believe this with their hearts and souls . Now as they sit around in your living room you dump a sack of about 25 or 30 snakes in the middle of the floor . They will run for the hills I can assure you . Why ???? Because they don't know FOR SURE which kind these are even though the 2% figure works in the favor of them all being virtually harmless . If you got rid of all of something then and only then can you be 100% sure that the risk has been negated . With the Japanese I am sure that some or even many would have met tragic ends at the hands of soldiers families when their sons or brothers were killed in The Pacific . My grandfather (who came here in 1924) had his azz kicked on a city bus in NYC by the father of a soldier that was killed in Europe . He heard his accent and screamed "You're one of those damn people that killed my boy". And it was on . Looks like a duck , walks like a duck ...... you know the drill .It might not be "right" but it would be very effective .
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
When the madman at Dunblane killed sixteen children (in UK) the Government responded by banning pistol ownership. He was only one man but that didn't matter, everyone was disarmed. That's what you call a precedent.
Sure the majority had done nothing wrong but they copped it nevertheless. In the interests of Public Safety. There is a much more compelling case for banning Muslims.
Ever since the raping and murder of schoolchildren at Beslan in Russia I have had NO sympathy for Muslims.
 
I agree - cowardice and appeasement - have undermined what were once prospering and stable nations in an area known as "europe".

Undermined by globalism, communism/socialism and multiculturalism, they are now vulnerable to anything and everything that is by now consolidated and well entrenched within their borders.

They are dependent on foreign resources, economies and trade, easily subjected to instigated unrest and disorder, and ripe for the deceptions of central tyrannical rule.

There is some light in the tunnel though. Nationalism has been steadily rising in many parts of the new europa; I just hope they keep their backbones and can see it through.
 
The terrorists are now going after youngsters through psychological methods and they are very expert at it .They look at kids' psychological profiles and pick the most vulnerable ones to recruit .Then it's like a cult, they work on the kids constantly ,never leaving them alone.It's an incidious thing and difficult to deal with. They have to find those who are going after the kids, most likely in mosques and schools.
 
I've got it. Register all these Muslim pricks and attach them to a (registered, of course, Mosque). Each and every one of them will have to sign a new oath of allegiance to the state they live in and agree not to be involved in certain behaviours - prescribed by regulation. All Mullahs,Imams,Ayotollahs and whatever will sign the same oath. Anyone who doesn't will be immediately deported to their country of origin, or their parents,grandparents or whatever and not paid any sort of compensation. If they don't know or don't say where they're from, off to Potassi for the rest of their lives.

Thereafter, if any one of them steps outside the bounds, then all their fellow Mosquitoes get the deport default.
I think this would be a major incentive for them to behave.

I'm sure there are ways and means of sorting these Muslim pricks out. This little discussion is only part of it. But I am forming my opinions and so are the rest of the posters here. It's important. We are all on the Internet and talking to each other. If our minds become clear then we can tell our friends and politicians what we want, and what we don't want. We all agree that having our arses blown off is what we don't want.
 
Exile the muslims?
1st amendment anyone? And what exactly does a muslim look like? what exactly does a christian look like? or a jew? think logically...

You would have neighbors calling the antimuslim police on neighbors they dont like, the police would question people, and interegate people in suspicion of being muslim, and if we got to that point I doubt guns would be legal. I would be exactly what we dont want... government with MORE power.

Imagine this:

Cops pulls car over with hispanic males in the car, or maybe white men with sun tans. Cops tells the men they are being pulled over because they look muslim..

Something you want?

My best friend is white, blond hair, green eyes...and muslim.
 
When the madman at Dunblane killed sixteen children (in UK) the Government responded by banning pistol ownership. He was only one man but that didn't matter, everyone was disarmed. That's what you call a precedent.
Sure the majority had done nothing wrong but they copped it nevertheless. In the interests of Public Safety. There is a much more compelling case for banning Muslims.
Ever since the raping and murder of schoolchildren at Beslan in Russia I have had NO sympathy for Muslims.
Click to expand...

The idiocy of this logic is stunning. Allow me to paraphrase that in a way most US gun owners might understand:

When the madmen at Columbine killed thirteen children (in the US) the Government responded by proposing more gun control. They were only two boys but that didn't matter, everyone was disarmed. That's what you call a precedent.
Sure the majority of law abiding gun owners had done nothing wrong but they copped it nevertheless. In the interests of Public Safety. There is a much more compelling case for banning guns.
Click to expand...

Herd all the Muslims together for the bad acts of a few? I wonder how long it will be before Hillary and Diane Feinstein urge herding all the gun owners together for the bad acts of a few? How about Christians? They've been known to bomb abortion clinics. Surely we must ban them all. Its a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope you advocate, but what the hell. That whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is such a drag. 'Guilty until proven innocent would be so much easier, huh?

All Muslims are not bad people; I've had friends and classmates who were Muslims (and ironically this was at a Jewish educational institution). In fact they despise acts of terrorism by radical Muslims as much if not more than many non-Muslims do. In the same way events like Columbine are used to demonize all gunowners (regardless of whether they are law abiding or not), acts of terrorism by radical Muslims brings similar similar demonization of all Muslims (regardless of whether they are law abiding or not, or even subscribe to the same set of beliefs as those who aren't).

I agree with BerettaCougar above. The government has already seized too much power in the name of safety and security, and yet people want to give them more? How much of your rights and freedoms are you willing to give up in the name of safety and security?
 
Realistically it's just something we have to deal with. I believe we'll find a solution, but it's way down the line. I don't think upsetting good US citizens by branding them based on their lineage is a good way to do it. I think what we're doing now, abroad, is a start, but we have to be willing to take more collateral. People may disregard their own lives, but they all love something, and when that something is at stake their tunes change. As much as Hollywood is ridiculously stupid, I sort of agreed with the "Swordfish" approach. Revisit every pain upon Americans tenfold upon those connected with the instigators. We would like to maintain the moral high ground, and I believe that's the "right" way to do it (being the "bigger person"), but we're not going to rid ourselves of the pestilence of terror - Islamic, domestic or any other kind - by taking the high, respectable road. It's good being at the top, but everyone can see you, and you're consequently an easier target. If we truly want to stamp out these problems, it will get dirty. And while it's easy for us to say we want that at this level, if we truly had to make that call, it's really a difficult tradeoff to make. I really do think we need to become evil to effectively combat this type of evil, and I don't know whether or not that would undermine some part of our greatness. As much as I may say un-PC things in a reactive way at times, though, I think the coralling or deportation of all group of people based on their color, creed or history will create far more enemies than it will rid us of, and the sort of people who wish us harm will know how to slip through the net anyway. I don't even mean to dirty the issue sounding so "us and them," as I certainly know people from all walks who are well-integrated Americans, but it's just topical in this case.
 
How about we take the fight to them instead of waiting for them to attack us here, (even tho' that is inevitable) then we pick a second country in the middle of the Islamic nation-states whose military and leadership has eroded over the years, invade them for one reason or another, force a change of thinking on them via democratic republic reform of government allowing even the females to vote, retrain their army; give those two nations financial as necessary to play our version of the game of life, cross our fingers and hope that these two particular nations see the light and prosper... while all the local nefarious ner-do-wells of that particular ilk (be they Arab, Islam, Christian, Persian, Slavic, etc) focus 99% of their attention over there in their own backyard, thereby allowing us to go about dealing with our own, local religious fanatic mutants here, be they right wing Christian, left wing do-gooders, converted Black Muslims, crazed Catholic pedophiles, etc., (i.e. only those who break the LAW, no matter what they think, feel or practice) while we try to maintain some form of freedom and liberty worthy of those who died defending that concept?

Oh wait a minute... isn't that???... NAHHH, never work. Way too far-fetched to actually work without the UN in charge. ;)

Nor is it Europe's fault, methinks. Unless you want to go back to 1945 and rethink how a war ravaged group of nations dealt with the remaining few leftover refugee Jews.

No, I think "The Blame" should be placed directly on those who continue to instigate the violent action. Or whichever side ultimately loses said war. Whichever is most convenient. Let the winner write the history. We'll re-write it later to suit our needs. :p

Was it Adam or Eve's fault that Cain slew his brother Abel over a raging jealousy of the Good Lord's respect (or lack thereof) for his actions and effort?

OOPS. There goes that Judeo/Christian 20th Century American upbringing again... maybe it's all my fault :rolleyes:
 
"No, I think "The Blame" should be placed directly on those who continue to instigate the violent action."

Ironically, if there were no oil there, probably the only way we'd know the Middle East even existed is by the occasional tourist writing an article for National Geographic.

Tim
 
Killing an Idea....

Exile of one group of people is not going to fix this issue. You are not fighting a huge military force. It is a small group that hides in the masses.

By doing what you are proposing you are encouraging more decent good muslims to turn against the west.

What we need to do is build up our Human intelligence. You can thank Bill Clinton and his stupid policies for this one: Clinton decided the US should not be using informants who have criminal records to further our intelligence aims, and de-emphasized buidling our intelligence networks. Because of our high tech spy satellites and other technologies.

Well, low tech did us in on 9/11.

With an improve counter-intellgence force and the balls to use surgical force when presented with the opportunity (After the USS COLE incident, we had Bin Laden in our sights - but then Chicken Clinton decided not to attack for fear of collateral damage) - we can surgically end this threat.

Waging a different war in the 21st century, we cannot fight by using the old techniques of superior firepower vs inferior force. We must learn to be smart and surgical.
 
What the root problem here is.

For those of you that are old enough to remember, we went through this before in a almost mythical place called Viet Nam!!

Our real enemy is an idea or set of ideas, a religion, or in the case of 'Nam, a political/economic philosophy!!

The real core problem is: how do you tell the enemy??

As an historical example: you have 10 people. 5 men, 3 women, a boy and a girl. One of them is Charlie. A real baddie!! This one has killed at least 20 of your best men!! He/she is an expert sniper, knows explosives, and is protected by total anonymity!!! Good intel says that one of these is the BG, but your source was killed before he could tell you which one!! What do you do?? You can't just let them all go!! You can't shoot them all!! ( although that WAS the preferred choice in many cases) What option do you have left??

Now, fast forward to today!!
Substitute Muslim for Charlie and you have just grasped the bull by the horns!!

If you are at a loss of ideas, then you share the pain of this administration!!
If you know the solution, then hie thee hence to Washington because you just became the most valuable commodity in the nation!!
 
Some of us know Muslims. I do myself. As individuals I have no problems with any of them.
But, read the UK press reports about how their British born bombers were all 'nice guys' (or words to that effect.)
I don't need to give you a run-down on recent history. You will know that the Twin Towers weren't blown up by Zulus. Bali, Beslan, Madrid and London weren't attacked by Buddhists or Eskimos . Nope, they were all done by Muslims.
Back to the UK for a moment. The bombers were born around 20 years ago. They had full citizenship rights and could come and go as they pleased.
Does the same situation apply in America and Australia?
Do you think for a minute that it won't produce the same result?

I've already suggested some approaches for dealing with the threat. I see it as closing the gate before all the horses bolt.
I would be delighted if there are some better solutions. Maybe there are?

Lepers used to be isolated to protect the general population from their disease. Didn't mean we had no sympathy for them as individuals.
That strategy worked pretty well. Leprosy is no longer much of a problem.

I can tell you right now that when the bombs start going off in America there will be a lot less pussyfooting around than there is at present.

Does anyone remember the TV footage of the Palestinians dancing and singing in the street after 9/11? Were they 'good' ones or 'bad' ones?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top