What's good for the Nazi works for a jihadi

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
cnorman18

What's good for the Nazi works for a jihadi

Post #1

Post by cnorman18 »

Op-ed in today's Washington Times
Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper wrote:

What's good for the Nazi works for a jihadi

President Obama was right when he declared after convening the post mortem on the Detroit debacle that "we have to do better." The simple fact is that $42 billion later, Americans do not feel much safer getting on an airplane than they did eight years ago. Despite the post- Sept. 11 upgrades in security, despite the long lines, the inconveniences of removing shoes and belts and coming soon to an airport near you - full body scans - we are not reassured that the next disaster is not lurking just around the corner. People are concerned we aren't doing enough to fight the enemy and we're still not sure we've fully identified the enemy.

The administration and its Republican critics are still arguing whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's Ft. Hood massacre constitutes an act of terrorism. That dispute is reflected in a larger debate of whether we are still in a "war against terror" and whether individuals like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be treated as enemy combatants or read their Miranda Rights as common criminals.

But however that debate shakes out, there is an important move, that would cost little but could strike a blow against extremism and make our skies a little safer: The president admitted that the current watch list is inadequate. But America needs to immediately expand its terrorist watch list. Consider this fact: While the United States has a database of 500,000 individuals implicated in criminal activity, only 1,700 of those names are on the terrorist watch list banning entry into the United States. Compare that to the watch list developed by the U.S. Justice Department of suspected Nazi war criminals. Developed in the 1980s, 40,000 individuals were initially listed, but later the list expanded beyond 70,000 when the Office of Special Investigations on Nazi War Crimes (OSI) included the entire roster of the Nazi SS - and all others who belonged to groups that abetted genocide.

Most of those aging genociders are in their 80s or 90s today and the hunt for Nazi war criminals will soon reach its biological solution. But not so Islamist terrorism - only in its genesis - which is the scourge of all humanity at the dawn of the new decade. It is inconceivable that in fighting the existential threat of terrorism, that we can be operating with a list of only 1,700 people to bar from entering the United States. To better protect the flying public and to strike a blow against extremists who today regularly indescriminantly slaughter fellow Muslims, the Department of Homeland Security should take a page from the Nazi watch list and immediately add those who openly support and abet terrorism. In practical terms, it means immediately listing the many thousands of names of all known members and enablers of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Indonesia's Jemmah Islamiyah and other terror groups listed by the State Department and the European Union.

And there are others who never fired a bullet, or strapped themselves to a ticking bomb, who nevertheless deserve to be publicly placed on America's terror watch list. They include Al Jazeera's Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, whose online fatwa insists that Palestinian women have the right to attain martyrdom by blowing themselves up amidst Israelis. There is Omar Bakri Muhammad, who once claimed to be a recruiter for al Qaeda and organized the "Magnificent 19" (Sept. 11 bombers) in London. Jordan's Dr. Ibrahim Zayd Al-Kilani, who said this: "killing a transgressing American soldier" is an obligation and a kind of jihad. There are the followers of Indonesia's notorious Abu Bakar Bashir, Jamaica's Abdullah el-Faisel, and Libyan-born Abu Yaha al- Libi, who defends the "legitimacy" of violent jihad as a "religious obligation." And of course, Yemen's favorite American Anwar al-Awlaki who served as spiritual mentor and validator to Ft. Hood's Maj. Hasan and the Northwest Airlines terrorist.

We have no doubts that a simple e-mail to all U.S. embassies by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton would flush out many more terror enablers. To be sure, errors will be made and anyone who stands accused of such activity must be given recourse to clear their names. It may also be true that not everyone who belongs to a terrorist group will become a suicide bomber, but let them suffer the consequences - why should Americans have to take that risk?

By compiling a true terror watch list, the United States and allies will reassure the shaken flying public that no one committed to terrorism against innocent civilians is aboard their flight. Such a policy will also help strengthen the hand of moderates across the Arab and Muslim world struggling against these extremists. And by providing the guardians of our borders with accurate and timely information about all those who promote and deploy terrorism against our nation, we can help co-opt the need to turn to blanket racial and ethnic profiling.

The time to act is now.


Rabbi Marvin Hier is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Rabbi Abraham Cooper is associate dean of the Center.

It's hard to see how anyone of any religion or any political persuasion could disagree with this.

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Post #51

Post by DeBunkem »

Now who is name-calling? Not to mention slandering my loyalty; all typical NeoCon tactics designed to turn the citizens of the US against each other and fanned by 24/7 hate hype of mainly Rightist hatemongers. Not too many years ago a caucasian Christian soldier opened fire on his fellow recruits assembled on the training field. I don't need to Google well-known events for you...do it yourself. Peole go postal all the time here. A Muslim in the military would get more than his share of hazing, and who knows if he had lost family back home from bombs or crazed Blackwater hired killers? Ann Coulter says you should kill some Liberals to scare us. Guess what....I'm not even nervous. Nevertheless, counting the victims, among whom are the Kennedies, MLK, family planning doctors, and OK city terrorist victims, who are the majority of homicidal traitors? Rightists. Street crime is committed overwhelmingly by Xtians. To cherry pick demographics such as Detroit, mainly a black population with lots of poverty and and black-on-black crime is patently dishonest. "Nazi" fits Rightists like a glove. Hitler and Mussolini first jailed the socialists, Communists, liberals, and union activists...just like RW dictatorships today. I've been through all this when Bush was lying us into war. In almost all cases it has been anti-war commentaries that have proven right. I have no interest in re-debating a debate that Liberals have already won many times over. Here...debate Lincoln if you gotta keep this up:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an
invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may
choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
-- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If
today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary
to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading
us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see
no probability of the British invading us' but he will
say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" :
Abraham Lincoln.


Image

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #52

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:Now who is name-calling? Not to mention slandering my loyalty; all typical NeoCon tactics designed to turn the citizens of the US against each other and fanned by 24/7 hate hype of mainly Rightist hatemongers. Not too many years ago a caucasian Christian soldier opened fire on his fellow recruits assembled on the training field.
Don't remember anything like that, but if it happened he didn't do it because Jesus told him to. Jihadists follow the word and deed of the 'prophet'
I don't need to Google well-known events for you...do it yourself.
This is a debate, you make a claim, you back it up.
Peole go postal all the time here.
Muslims more than most. Why is that?
A Muslim in the military would get more than his share of hazing, and who knows if he had lost family back home from bombs or crazed Blackwater hired killers? Ann Coulter says you should kill some Liberals to scare us.
Cite.
Guess what....I'm not even nervous. Nevertheless, counting the victims, among whom are the Kennedies,
JFK was killed by a communist who admired Castro and spent time in the USSR. RFK was killed by a Muslim.
MLK, family planning doctors, and OK city terrorist victims, who are the majority of homicidal traitors? Rightists.
Wrong yet again, the correct answer is Muslim jihadists.
Street crime is committed overwhelmingly by Xtians.
Street crime has nothing to do with Nazis or Jihad, the subject of this thread.
To cherry pick demographics such as Detroit, mainly a black population with lots of poverty and and black-on-black crime is patently dishonest. "Nazi" fits Rightists like a glove.
That's what all the Communists call me. 8-)
Hitler and Mussolini first jailed the socialists,
Hitler WAS a socialist
Communists, liberals, and union activists...just like RW dictatorships today. I've been through all this when Bush was lying us into war. In almost all cases it has been anti-war commentaries that have proven right. I have no interest in re-debating a debate that Liberals have already won many times over. Here...debate Lincoln if you gotta keep this up:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an
invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may
choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose
-- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If
today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary
to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading
us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see
no probability of the British invading us' but he will
say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" :
Abraham Lincoln.


Image
You ignore all the Democrats who supported going into Iraq. I'm glad Saddam, the killer of 600,000 of his own people and supporter of international terrorism, is gone. The relative freedom of Iraq is one reason the Iranians are now actively opposing 'government by Mullah.'
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Post #53

Post by DeBunkem »

Nazi=(actual) socialist, You back up claims, I don't have to, more Muslims go postal than other religions, Democrats=liberals. . . .and on and on. Every discarded Cheneyesque and Rovist lie since 9/11. Do you require "backup" to prove that happened, too? It must be tiring to wear those blinders so long. :lalala: I suggest you take a job with a mercenary contractor and go truck gas for Halliburton in Iraq. You aren't convincing anyone of anything, but doing a great job of showing lurkers how far you reach into the barrel to "win" a "debate."
Your display only proves Carl Sagan correct again:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If
we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject
any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer
interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has
captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge
-- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous:
Carl Sagan
Get help before you end up killing someone or torching a mosque.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #54

Post by JoeyKnothead »

DeBunkem wrote:You aren't convincing anyone of anything, but doing a great job of showing lurkers how far you reach into the barrel to "win" a "debate."
Actually, East of Eden has shown this liberal leaning "lurker" that there's much validity in his case. Previous to your post here I donated tokens to him because I thought he was making such a compelling argument.

I always become weary when folks make proclamations about how a debate is being won or lost. I consider such proclamations to be attempts at comforting a troubled* mind. (*read fear of losing)

Lest anyone think I'm just a yes-man, ask East of Eden how often he and I have gone at it in these forums.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #55

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:Nazi=(actual) socialist,
Wikipedia: "Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]"

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
You back up claims, I don't have to, more Muslims go postal than other religions,
There have been about 3 -4 Muslim terror attacks daily since 9/11. 14,600 and counting. See http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
Democrats=liberals. . . .and on and on. Every discarded Cheneyesque and Rovist lie since 9/11.
So that Democrats tend to be liberals is just a 'Cheneyesque' or 'Rovist' lie? Maybe in the parellel universe you seem to inhabit.


Hey Debunkem, look at this story. I thought there were no WMDs?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100117/ap_ ... ea/ml_iraq
Last edited by East of Eden on Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #56

Post by East of Eden »

joeyknuccione wrote:
DeBunkem wrote:You aren't convincing anyone of anything, but doing a great job of showing lurkers how far you reach into the barrel to "win" a "debate."
Actually, East of Eden has shown this liberal leaning "lurker" that there's much validity in his case. Previous to your post here I donated tokens to him because I thought he was making such a compelling argument.

I always become weary when folks make proclamations about how a debate is being won or lost. I consider such proclamations to be attempts at comforting a troubled* mind. (*read fear of losing)

Lest anyone think I'm just a yes-man, ask East of Eden how often he and I have gone at it in these forums.
We disagree very often but for you and I hope for me, it is with respect, attacking arguments, not people.

We must think a bit alike, the 'troubled' mind aspect occurred to me also.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Post #57

Post by DeBunkem »

East of Eden, according to an admittedly unreliable source, the bible, was the land of Nod... :sleep: I feel comfy with that chide because I have been flamed concerning my mental stability. (see above)

Chemical Ali's trial proves there were WMD's in Iraq? I'm sure there "were," just as S. Africa used to have nukes, but destroyed them. Iraq did the same. No grounds for invasion. Nothing in their arsenal could threaten the US. The Brits under Churchill bombed the Kurds with poison gas too. Invade England. Israel has plenty of nukes...invade Israel?

Come on...am I the only "lurker" that knows that just because the Nazis commandeered the National Socialists that they were nevertheless not real socialists? Go back to Wiki and read on. Incomplete quotes is next to lying. I'll quote what EE probably knows but is being coy:
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left-wing and right-wing ideology, Nazism is considered to be a form of far right politics.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]
Wikipedia; "Nazism"

using your "logic"...Saddam was protected by the GOP. Yep, they were called the Republican Guard. Need a WIKI on that?

As I replied in another thread, we're not writing term papers here. but supposed to be having fun. I see no reason to pepper my posts with footnotes when my opponent uses dishonest non-sequiturs and plenty of unsupported allegations of his own, and I don't care who says they agree with him.

Image

DeBunkem
Banned
Banned
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:57 pm

Post #58

Post by DeBunkem »

If nobody else bothers to spend time answering the obvious game-playing and flawed logic of EE, then I will observe the saying, "when in Rome. . ." here's my backup: http://www.goenglish.com/WhenInRomeDoAsTheRomansDo.asp
Americans have been conditioned to equate national
security with the strength of strategic military
forces. The Commission considers this prevailing
belief to be a simplistic illusion." From Rich
Christians in an Age of Hunger, by Ron Sider

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #59

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:If nobody else bothers to spend time answering the obvious game-playing and flawed logic of EE, then I will observe the saying, "when in Rome. . ." here's my backup: http://www.goenglish.com/WhenInRomeDoAsTheRomansDo.asp
I take it "When in Rome...." means you'll begin to actually debate and give evidence on a debate forum.
Americans have been conditioned to equate national
security with the strength of strategic military
forces. The Commission considers this prevailing
belief to be a simplistic illusion." From Rich
Christians in an Age of Hunger, by Ron Sider
Posting quotes from leftists isn't proof of anything.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #60

Post by East of Eden »

DeBunkem wrote:East of Eden, according to an admittedly unreliable source, the bible, was the land of Nod... :sleep:
:confused2:
I feel comfy with that chide because I have been flamed concerning my mental stability. (see above)

Chemical Ali's trial proves there were WMD's in Iraq? I'm sure there "were," just as S. Africa used to have nukes, but destroyed them. Iraq did the same. No grounds for invasion. Nothing in their arsenal could threaten the US. The Brits under Churchill bombed the Kurds with poison gas too. Invade England. Israel has plenty of nukes...invade Israel?

Come on...am I the only "lurker" that knows that just because the Nazis commandeered the National Socialists that they were nevertheless not real socialists? Go back to Wiki and read on. Incomplete quotes is next to lying. I'll quote what EE probably knows but is being coy:
Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left-wing and right-wing ideology, Nazism is considered to be a form of far right politics.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[11][12][13]
Wikipedia; "Nazism"
Opposition to economic liberalism is not exactly from Adam Smith and free-market economics. Government control of the economy is socialism, thanks for making my point.

From Wikipedia: "Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire capitalism. Opposing government intervention in the free market, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism and socialism.[2]"


using your "logic"...Saddam was protected by the GOP. Yep, they were called the Republican Guard. Need a WIKI on that?

As I replied in another thread, we're not writing term papers here. but supposed to be having fun. I see no reason to pepper my posts with footnotes when my opponent uses dishonest non-sequiturs
Because you don't understand logic doesn't make it a non-sequitur.
and plenty of unsupported allegations
Where?
of his own, and I don't care who says they agree with him.

Image
Better Karl Rove's playbook than Saul Alinsky's. You imply Rove actually made that quote. Show me where, or did you just make it up and attribute it to him?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

Post Reply