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.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #71

Post by MagusYanam »

That depends. See, words have these things called 'definitions', which demarcate what they refer to out in the real world. Some people like to ignore these pesky definitions when it suits them, in order to advance their ideological agendas.

The Nazis courted the lower classes by calling themselves 'socialist', even though their policies were anything but - with their service of corporate interests to build their military strength they belonged firmly on the economic right. The communists called themselves 'democratic' and 'socialist' in order to give themselves moral legitimacy as a 'people's movement', even though they weren't dedicated to the peaceful reform of existing social systems but rather their violent destruction and replacement. In general, this is what Orwell called the Big Lie.

With Christianity it's different. Christians are generally people who follow Christ, but there exists a substantial amount of disagreement as to what this entails. I would say that 'following Christ' entails a conscious effort to follow the Great Commandment ('love God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbour as yourself') along with various logical extensions: renunciation of all forms of political violence and war, preferential treatment for the poor and outcast, reverence for the environment, respect for lawful secular authorities, frugal living, &c. Others might add acceptance of one or more of the Creeds, or attendance at Mass to this list.

Christianity doesn't have a hard-and-fast definition. Socialism does. And Nazis are not socialists.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

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

Post #72

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote:That depends. See, words have these things called 'definitions', which demarcate what they refer to out in the real world. Some people like to ignore these pesky definitions when it suits them, in order to advance their ideological agendas.

The Nazis courted the lower classes by calling themselves 'socialist', even though their policies were anything but - with their service of corporate interests to build their military strength they belonged firmly on the economic right. The communists called themselves 'democratic' and 'socialist' in order to give themselves moral legitimacy as a 'people's movement', even though they weren't dedicated to the peaceful reform of existing social systems but rather their violent destruction and replacement. In general, this is what Orwell called the Big Lie.

With Christianity it's different. Christians are generally people who follow Christ, but there exists a substantial amount of disagreement as to what this entails. I would say that 'following Christ' entails a conscious effort to follow the Great Commandment ('love God with all your heart and soul and mind and love your neighbour as yourself') along with various logical extensions: renunciation of all forms of political violence and war, preferential treatment for the poor and outcast, reverence for the environment, respect for lawful secular authorities, frugal living, &c. Others might add acceptance of one or more of the Creeds, or attendance at Mass to this list.

Christianity doesn't have a hard-and-fast definition. Socialism does. And Nazis are not socialists.
Your opinion. Communism could at least be described as Socialism on steroids. They are both plagues on mankind.
"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
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #73

Post by Abraxas »

East of Eden wrote:The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book
Stopped here. "The Black Book of Communism" is a propaganda piece with no basis in reality. Indeed, two of the contributors to the book tried to have their names taken off it because of how dishonestly the overall work, in particular the introduction, treated the subjects under discussion. The book uses only the most highball estimates of how many died which almost no scholar takes seriously and uses methodology so broad that if applied to other governments, Capitalist India alone would more than surpass the death toll of every Communist government in history combined.

Long story short, modern scholarly research in the Soviet Union caps at maybe 4-6 million, 10 million if you count every single famine death in the SU as government caused. China is harder to get numbers on but even it is only in the ballpark of 20 million, counting famine.

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #74

Post by Wyvern »

East of Eden wrote:If Nazis and Communists weren't really socialists despite calling themselves that, when past historical Christian misdeeds are brought up here can I say they weren't really Christians?
EoE, you are old enough to remember the cold war using your argument would mean that East Germany was a democratic country, after all its official name was the democratic republic of germany. Or to use a modern example North Korea's official name is the democratic peoples republic of Korea. If what your argument says is correct then the Korean war was a real strange war, a democratic country(North Korea) invades another democratic country(South Korea) and in turn is invaded by yet another democratic nation(US, et. al.) while at the same time being helped by two communist nations(Soviet Union and China).

If you want to deny a christian is a christian simply because of their deeds you can do so but you will be expected to show that they are not christians, just as it has been shown that nazi's were not socialists despite their name.

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #75

Post by MagusYanam »

East of Eden wrote:Your opinion. Communism could at least be described as Socialism on steroids. They are both plagues on mankind.
Again, no. It's not just my opinion - it is an analysis of the widely-accepted definitions of socialism and fascism, one of which you provided. And if you don't use words the way they are defined, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

And the last sentence is just plain wrong - socialism is not a form of plague. Most countries which have implemented some level of socialist or socialist-inspired reforms (Japan, the UK, Sweden, Taiwan &c.) have very low rates of plague, bubonic or pneumonic, and indeed have quite high life expectancies.
Abraxas wrote:Long story short, modern scholarly research in the Soviet Union caps at maybe 4-6 million, 10 million if you count every single famine death in the SU as government caused. China is harder to get numbers on but even it is only in the ballpark of 20 million, counting famine.
Well, Mao's Great Drunken Lurch Sideways was a pretty big disappointment and led to some bad humanitarian crises, based as it was on ideological junk science; similarly with Soviet agricultural 'reforms'. That said, after the 1970's when both Stalin and Mao were dead, both regimes wised up considerably.

'Course, I lived in a former Soviet country for a few months. Lot of people there tend to wax nostalgic about the 'old days' under Khrushchev when the trains ran on time and there were reliable pensions for old people.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

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

Post #76

Post by East of Eden »

Abraxas wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book
Stopped here. "The Black Book of Communism" is a propaganda piece with no basis in reality. Indeed, two of the contributors to the book tried to have their names taken off it because of how dishonestly the overall work, in particular the introduction, treated the subjects under discussion. The book uses only the most highball estimates of how many died which almost no scholar takes seriously
Wrong. From Wikipedia, many scholars do accept the higher numbers.

"Calculating the number of victims
Researchers before the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union attempting to count the number of people killed under Stalin's regime produced estimates ranging from 3 to 60 million.[75] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available, containing official records of the execution of approximately 800,000 prisoners under Stalin for either political or criminal offenses, around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulags and some 390,000 deaths during kulak forced resettlement – for a total of about 3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[76]

The official Soviet archival records do not contain comprehensive figures for some categories of victims, such as the those of ethnic deportations or of German population transfers in the aftermath of WWII.[77] Other notable exclusions from NKVD data on repression deaths include the Katyn massacre, other killings in the newly occupied areas, and the mass shootings of Red Army personnel (deserters and so-called deserters) in 1941. Also, the official statistics on Gulag mortality exclude deaths of prisoners taking place shortly after their release but which resulted from the harsh treatment in the camps.[78] Some historians also believe the official archival figures of the categories that were recorded by Soviet authorities to be unreliable and incomplete.[79][80] In addition to failures regarding comprehensive recordings, as one additional example, Robert Gellately and Simon Sebag-Montefiore argue the many suspects beaten and tortured to death while in "investigative custody" were likely not to have been counted amongst the executed.[9][81]

Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[82] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.[83]

Some have also included deaths of 6 to 8 million people in the 1932–1933 famine as victims of Stalin's repression. This categorization is controversial however, as historians differ as to whether the famine was a deliberate part of the campaign of repression against kulaks and others,[40][84] or simply an unintended consequence of the struggle over forced collectivization.[51][85][86]

Accordingly, if famine victims are included, a minimum of around 10 million deaths—6 million from famine and 4 million from other causes—are attributable to the regime,[87] with a number of recent historians suggesting a likely total of around 20 million, citing much higher victim totals from executions, gulags, deportations and other causes.[88] Adding 6–8 million famine victims to Erlikman's estimates above, for example, would yield a total of between 15 and 17 million victims. Researcher Robert Conquest, meanwhile, has revised his original estimate of up to 30 million victims down to 20 million.[89] Others maintain that their earlier higher victim total estimates are correct.[90][91]"
and uses methodology so broad that if applied to other governments, Capitalist India alone would more than surpass the death toll of every Communist government in history combined.
Noam Chomsky has attempted this silly argument. How many did India intentionally starve?

Stalin told Churchill he killed 10,000,000 in the Ukraine. http://www.mfa.gov.ua/usa/en/10867.htm
Long story short, modern scholarly research in the Soviet Union caps at maybe 4-6 million, 10 million if you count every single famine death in the SU as government caused. China is harder to get numbers on but even it is only in the ballpark of 20 million, counting famine.
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent study 'Mao: The Unknown Study' attributes to Mao's regime 70,000,000 deaths. We haven't even discussed the 'lesser' Communist tyrants such as Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Ceausescu, Castro, and Kim Jong-il, etc.
"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 #77

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote:
East of Eden wrote:Your opinion. Communism could at least be described as Socialism on steroids. They are both plagues on mankind.
Again, no. It's not just my opinion - it is an analysis of the widely-accepted definitions of socialism and fascism, one of which you provided. And if you don't use words the way they are defined, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

And the last sentence is just plain wrong - socialism is not a form of plague. Most countries which have implemented some level of socialist or socialist-inspired reforms (Japan, the UK, Sweden, Taiwan &c.) have very low rates of plague, bubonic or pneumonic, and indeed have quite high life expectancies.
I meant plague as in widespread affliction, not viral.
Well, Mao's Great Drunken Lurch Sideways was a pretty big disappointment and led to some bad humanitarian crises, based as it was on ideological junk science; similarly with Soviet agricultural 'reforms'. That said, after the 1970's when both Stalin and Mao were dead, both regimes wised up considerably.

'Course, I lived in a former Soviet country for a few months. Lot of people there tend to wax nostalgic about the 'old days' under Khrushchev when the trains ran on time and there were reliable pensions for old people.
No doubt you can find old Germans saying the same about the Nazis.
"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
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #78

Post by Abraxas »

East of Eden wrote:
Abraxas wrote:
East of Eden wrote:The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression is a book
Stopped here. "The Black Book of Communism" is a propaganda piece with no basis in reality. Indeed, two of the contributors to the book tried to have their names taken off it because of how dishonestly the overall work, in particular the introduction, treated the subjects under discussion. The book uses only the most highball estimates of how many died which almost no scholar takes seriously
Wrong. From Wikipedia, many scholars do accept the higher numbers.
Never said that none of them accepted higher numbers than the scholarly consensus. However, there is a huge difference between some of those higher estimates and the ludicrous 100 Million BBoC puts forward.
and uses methodology so broad that if applied to other governments, Capitalist India alone would more than surpass the death toll of every Communist government in history combined.
Noam Chomsky has attempted this silly argument. How many did India intentionally starve?
Irrelevant. BBoC lists unequal distribution of healthcare as a cause of death. India has that problem and, if were counted against it, would leave them with more deaths than the whole history of Communism ever just in the last 60 years.
Stalin told Churchill he killed 10,000,000 in the Ukraine. http://www.mfa.gov.ua/usa/en/10867.htm
So Churchill said after the two had become enemies.
Long story short, modern scholarly research in the Soviet Union caps at maybe 4-6 million, 10 million if you count every single famine death in the SU as government caused. China is harder to get numbers on but even it is only in the ballpark of 20 million, counting famine.
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday's recent study 'Mao: The Unknown Study' attributes to Mao's regime 70,000,000 deaths. We haven't even discussed the 'lesser' Communist tyrants such as Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Ceausescu, Castro, and Kim Jong-il, etc.
Lot's of studies have lots of different numbers. Most of them are less than half that, with even fewer when famine is not included, or at least not all famine death is included.

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

Post #79

Post by East of Eden »

Irrelevant. BBoC lists unequal distribution of healthcare as a cause of death.
Cite?
India has that problem and, if were counted against it, would leave them with more deaths than the whole history of Communism ever just in the last 60 years.
Unequal distribution of health care doesn't result in intentional deaths of political enemies.
So Churchill said after the two had become enemies.
Therefore, the Stalin quote is invalid? :confused2: There has to be a name for that logical fallacy.
Lot's of studies have lots of different numbers. Most of them are less than half that, with even fewer when famine is not included, or at least not all famine death is included.
So use half that number, that still leaves way more victims of Communism than Nazism.
"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
Abraxas
Guru
Posts: 1041
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Post #80

Post by Abraxas »

East of Eden wrote:
Irrelevant. BBoC lists unequal distribution of healthcare as a cause of death.
Cite?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_book_of_communism

"Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated "the excess of mortality" in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of healthcare resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India alone, the "democratic capitalist experiment" since 1947 has caused more deaths than in the entire history of Communism everywhere.[17]"

# ^ Counting the Bodies - Noam Chomsky, Spectrezine magazine.
India has that problem and, if were counted against it, would leave them with more deaths than the whole history of Communism ever just in the last 60 years.
Unequal distribution of health care doesn't result in intentional deaths of political enemies.
It can depending on how those resources are distributed and where. However, once again irrelevant as most of the :victims of Communism" were not political enemies but just people who were on the bad end of famines.
So Churchill said after the two had become enemies.
Therefore, the Stalin quote is invalid? :confused2: There has to be a name for that logical fallacy.
Yes, the fallacy is called appeal to authority and it was committed when it was acted as though because Churchill said it it must be true. The quote is suspect because the only source for it was a political enemy of Stalin's with an agenda and interest in seeing him destroyed. It isn't like there is a recording of it, or a published interview, and it directly contradicts the evidence as to how many were killed and where, and so we have no good reason to believe Stalin ever said that.
Lot's of studies have lots of different numbers. Most of them are less than half that, with even fewer when famine is not included, or at least not all famine death is included.
So use half that number, that still leaves way more victims of Communism than Nazism.
Not per regime and certainly not per capita. Of course, capitalism would have even more, so the point is moot to begin with.

Post Reply