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

Post #101

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote: Yeah, I stopped reading there, 'cause that's going straight back into time-machine conspiracy theory.
You appear to have trouble with more than one train of thought at a time, just like the HK issue. The opposition was illustrating the oppostion of Obama's party to Bush's attempt to rein in the crazyness.
Since Obama didn't become a US Senator until 2005, there is no way he could have played any role in opposing or filibustering that bill.
If he was such a minor player, why was he the second-highest recipient of Fannie Mae lobbying money?
Again, though, Democrats like Dodd and Frank may have taken out a few pegs from the financial system by demanding greater equality in lending practices, but the Republicans had already weakened the foundation significantly by repealing the Banking Act in the name of complete laissez-faire.
There was culpability on poth parties, I just wish Obama would acknoledge that instead of going into 'Bush's Fault' mode constantly.
"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
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #102

Post by MagusYanam »

East of Eden wrote:You appear to have trouble with more than one train of thought at a time, just like the HK issue. The opposition was illustrating the oppostion of Obama's party to Bush's attempt to rein in the crazyness.
Only you couldn't defend yourself on the HK issue - you portrayed it, using current information, as some kind of laissez-faire paradise. When I brought forward data from the same period to illustrate that HK's economy isn't all it's cracked up to be, you shifted the goalposts to say anything from 1998 onward didn't count.

And you're arguing that Bush had the right idea when he wanted to regulate banking practices with a government agency, which (surprise, surprise) I support. Guess government intervention in the financial market isn't such a bad idea after all?
East of Eden wrote:No, they were socialist countries.
That's wrong. North Korea and East Germany were both communist countries.

But Wyvern's point is good. The USSR called itself 'socialist' even though it wasn't, and North Korea and East Germany both called themselves 'democratic' even though East Germany wasn't and North Korea still isn't. If you're going to label countries by what they call themselves you might as well be consistent about it.
East of Eden wrote:If he was such a minor player, why was he the second-highest recipient of Fannie Mae lobbying money?
Obviously not for opposing this bill. But just to be clear, I'm not exactly a fan of the way Obama's constructed his economic advising team either.
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
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #103

Post by McCulloch »

Wyvern wrote: does that mean you believe East Germany was and North Korea is a democracy?
East of Eden wrote:
No, they were socialist countries.
Democracy is a form of government that involves rule by the people, either directly or through their representatives. Other forms of government include, monarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, dictatorship, military junta or theocracy.
Socialism is an economic system advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Other economic systems include capitalism (including laissez-faire capitalism), feudalism, mercantilism and the mixed economy.

It is wrong to answer the question, "Do you believe that X is a democracy?" with "no it was socialist." It would be like answering the question, "Is he a Christian?" with "no he is a bricklayer."
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

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

Post #104

Post by Wyvern »

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry"

"After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration’s proposal. Industry executives said congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. " (they’re republicans)
Did they actually follow through with their stated intentions? If so how far did it get in the committee process?
The republicans had a slim majority. It takes 60 votes to beat a fillibuster
Did this proposed legislation actually make it to a floor vote?
In an effort to make housing “affordable� to everyone, they created the market for the high-risk subprime loans. New regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making, or face stiff government penalties.

Meanwhile, Fannie Mae executives received maximum bonus payouts in the millions by overestimating earnings. You can now see the domino effect this has had with corporations like AIG, who owned a large stake in Fannie Mae.
Fannie and Freddies purpose is to help provide affordable housing which is why they both are exempt from much of the regulations of normal mortgage companies. AIG got in trouble not because their stocks in Fannie went down but because they became heavily involved in the new derivatives market which was created by bundling together many mortgages and turning them into a commodity. AIG was involved in insuring the insurer against default. If you are going to accept living in a capitalist system you have to accept that it is by nature cyclical.

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

Post #105

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote: Only you couldn't defend yourself on the HK issue - you portrayed it, using current information, as some kind of laissez-faire paradise. When I brought forward data from the same period
Note to Magus: 'Were' is past tense. 'Were' is different from current.
Obviously not for opposing this bill. But just to be clear, I'm not exactly a fan of the way Obama's constructed his economic advising team either.
It would be nice if he had at least one person from the private sector in his cabinet.
"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
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #106

Post by MagusYanam »

East of Eden wrote:Note to Magus: 'Were' is past tense. 'Were' is different from current.
:roll:

Then either provide data from 1997 or before, or retract your claim.
East of Eden wrote:It would be nice if he had at least one person from the private sector in his cabinet.
Zhu Diwen (Secretary of Energy) worked for AT&T's Bell Labs for 11 years.
Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury) worked for the Kissinger Associates firm for 3 years.
Robert Gates (Secretary of Defence) was on the board of trustees for several firms: Fidelity, Brinker Int'l and Parker Drilling, to name a few.
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) was on the board of directors for TCBY for 6 years and Wal-Mart for 5.
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 #107

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote: Then either provide data from 1997 or before, or retract your claim.
What are you talking about? This thread is terminaly stupid.
Zhu Diwen (Secretary of Energy) worked for AT&T's Bell Labs for 11 years.
Tim Geithner (Secretary of the Treasury) worked for the Kissinger Associates firm for 3 years.
Robert Gates (Secretary of Defence) was on the board of trustees for several firms: Fidelity, Brinker Int'l and Parker Drilling, to name a few.
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State) was on the board of directors for TCBY for 6 years and Wal-Mart for 5.
You are right about there being at least one, but there are fewer than any administration in history. I'm not sure I'd count being on a board. The vast majority have been at the public trough their whole lives, as opposed to doing something productive.

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/200 ... ins-a-lot/
"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
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #108

Post by MagusYanam »

East of Eden wrote:What are you talking about? This thread is terminaly stupid.
And you're deliberately making it so. Let me lay this out in simple terms for you.

E of E: Hong Kong was superior to the other Asian states for its total free market.
MY: Evidence?
E of E: *2010 AEI link*
MY: *2010 TradingEconomics link*
E of E: Doesn't count!
MY: Why not?
E of E: *Hasn't answered yet*
East of Eden wrote:You are right about there being at least one, but there are fewer than any administration in history. I'm not sure I'd count being on a board. The vast majority have been at the public trough their whole lives, as opposed to doing something productive.
So people employed by the government don't do anything productive? Why don't you say that to the faces of our men and women in uniform, East of Eden?

Sorry, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Public-sector workers add significantly to this country's GDP (according to the Wikipedia article about 1/3 of the US GDP), therefore they are objectively productive on the macro level.
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 #109

Post by East of Eden »

MagusYanam wrote: And you're deliberately making it so.
Pot, meet kettle.
Let me lay this out in simple terms for you.

E of E: Hong Kong was superior to the other Asian states for its total free market.
MY: Evidence?
This is where you screw up. I originally asked if you thought in HK they 'were' harmed by a lack of gov't intervention, meaning when British. The AEI link was a general response to this from you:

"I have lived in Finland, in England, in China and in Kazakhstan - all of which have mixed economies and social programs. I encountered no difficulty in making voluntary exchanges for goods and services in any of those countries, and neither did any of the people who sold those goods and services to me."

You didn't mention HK in the above, and I didn't specifically mention HK in my link response, which was making the point that economic freedom is linked to prosperity and human rights.
E of E: *2010 AEI link*
MY: *2010 TradingEconomics link*
E of E: Doesn't count!
MY: Why not?
E of E: *Hasn't answered yet*
Speaking of not answering, why would I say 'were' if I were referring to the 2010 report? I'll keep explaining as long as needed, but wouldn't you like to move on? If I made a similar hissy fit every time you said something I didn't think jived, this thread would be 300 pages.
So people employed by the government don't do anything productive?
As a broad generalization, no, outside of constitutionally mandated duties.
Why don't you say that to the faces of our men and women in uniform, East of Eden?
Defense is a constitutional duty of government. I'd like to see you say the things you do about our military to their face.
Sorry, but you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Public-sector workers add significantly to this country's GDP (according to the Wikipedia article about 1/3 of the US GDP), therefore they are objectively productive on the macro level.
Baloney. Do you want me to post the 2010 AEI link again? If your theory was true, the nations on the bottom of the list would be the best off. Take the phoney 'stimulous' program going on, where Obama commits generational theft by borrowing money we can't repay and passes it around, much of it to his political allies. For government to give someone $1, they have to take $1 from someone else. There is no net gain when you rob Peter to pay Paul. It's like trying to raise the level of the swimming pool by taking water from the deep end and putting it in the shallow end. Government doesn't produce anything, on the contrary their regulations and taxes are like a millstone around the economy. Ronald Reagan had it right.

'Productive' is what someone like Bill Gates is. Starting with an idea he now employes 60,000 people and has served millions of people, and yet the left treats him like an enemy.

The sad irony is that the self-proclaimed champions of the poor harm the poor most with their liberal policies of high taxation, regulation, minimum wage laws, etc. When the economy goes south, its those at the bottom of the economic rungs who suffer most, the rich aren't missing any meals.
"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

cnorman18

Defining terms

Post #110

Post by cnorman18 »

Just to jump in for a moment on the "public sector" argument - it seems clear to me that EoE is talking about public servants at the policy-making level. When he speaks of those who have spent virtually their entire professional lives at that level, he has a point; many of these people have never actually had to run a company or meet a payroll, have never really been responsible for doing anything but talking. Of course, most of them are lawyers...

But that's hardly the whole of "government" or "the public sector."

The guy that fixes the pothole in front of your house is "government." The crew that picks up your garbage is "government." Police officers, from your local county constables to the FBI, is "government." If a crew of men and women on a big red truck comes and keeps your house from burning down, that's your government at work. Building inspectors, health inspectors, licensing agencies, air-traffic controllers, the Army's Corps of Engineers (who build and maintain dams and levees all over the US), doctors, nurses, and attendants in public (county) hospitals and VA hospitals, social workers and child-welfare workers, and on and on and on... Not to mention, as MY has, the soldiers and sailors and airmen and women in the armed forces. Now which of those groups is anyone willing to stand up and say is unproductive, a waste of taxpayer money, and all about nothing but shuffling paper and moving money around?

Sorry. After being in both camps at one time or another, I find both the hard Left and the hard Right to be full of organic fertilizer, both of them more committed to their social agendas and prejudices than to either the facts or the people.

Post Reply