Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice

Remove all ads!

I have already received this about three times. That prompted me to check out snopes to see if the article was real.

I'm curious if this is hitting the main stream media overseas and if there is any feedback (positive or negative)

I apoligize in advance if I'm in the wrong forum. The split is totally confusing me.

 

Yeah, I guess we should just gas all those darkskinned muslimiacs and join the US in their crusade of ridding the oil fields of unbelievers for our greater glory.

Believe it or not but we have quite a few of right wing nutcases like this guy in Europe as well. We just dont let them have any power and are more seen as quaint lunatics than something to take seriously. They are kinda the European ecquivalent of some left wing factions in the US who to some extent idiolizes Europe. The author of this article and those like him idiolizes the US and everything, anything, it does.

Funny how both sides in this conflict accuses the others of being one party in WW2, the left accuses the right of being new Hitlers and the right accuses the left of being new Chamberlains. I know I would prefer to be a Chamberlain.

 

"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."

Man, in this age where advertising is an art full of refinement, one would think that propaganda might benefit of some more subtelty. Guess not.

 

1/ If I'm not mistaken the US was negotiating with Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbour
2/ In case of a conflict I'd much more prefer to be sure I had to fight than to attack and suddenly realise the other party has no WMD (Had to throw in this towards Bush, you understand, don't you? )

Oh, yeah, We should have attacked everything that wasn't capitalistic... Wait, wouldn't we be even worse then the communists than?

There is a VERY thin line between civil war and genocide, eventhough it's clearly as we speak it's genocide, it's very easy to say now: 'you should have known it'

Palestians do have a democracy... the only thing is that they feel/are oppressed by an other country from which they can't defend themselves, thus, desperately they reach to other means...
Personally I still feel that the foundation of Israel was the second biggest mistake mankind (well, let's ungeneralise it to the Western world) ever made... (Where the holocaust was the biggest one, not to misunderstand, but we clearly went the wrong way by given Israelis a land which wasn't ours to give...)

And if THAT had been the official reason why the US attacked Saddam, we might not have been this counterposed against the iraqi conflict
And it's quite easy to sling mud concerning the Oil-for-food program on europeans, while there are also americans that gathered illicit funds...
(Besides, this is strange, AFAIK the news of the illegal distribution of funds only reached my country last month, while this article claims to have been written in november last year... Perhaps Germans knew it a lo faster... For once: "Wir haben ess gewusst" )

This doesn't even deserves a response... let's kill all the muslims in europe... We already tried that with the Jews... (Bright thinking Mr. Henry Broder)

Indeed... as years have passed... whether he'll be remembered as the person that made the western countries misantropic towards muslims, or that he has recognized the danger and has acted towards it (and this option still has the huge possibility that he acted the totally WRONG way)

Oh yeah, China were religion still is in the very dark zone, and is certainly the defender of liberal values (individualism in china? China's rising to economical power will have a lot to do with the communistic (not the marx communism, but generalism as community) view on things... This is why China is recognising an economic boom, while India (roughly the same circumstances, but individualism has been much more important) still is struggling)

Just as Reagan did, problem is that his debts still aren't paid back... (the US is one of the countries with the biggest debt in the world if I'm not mistaken)

I agree with his first statement (our social wellfare system has to be reformed). But he hasn't realised that terrorist only conduct suicide bombings because they have no future anymore... Present people a future, give their lives means, and you'll ban terrorrism for ever... Try to fight terrorrism with force, and it will go into hiding, until it come back like on 9/11.

On a more humoristic note: yeah, I would like to see that old lady to grab her P-90 (European (belgian) gun btw) and shoot the robbers to little pieces

 

The man is absolutely right. The Europeans have a history of appeasing their enemies. Anyone remember the nazis and commies? Now they are at it again with the Islamic murderers.

 

Yeah, a real history of appeasing our enemies, that is why we have spent the entirity of recorded history killing each other for all manner of arbitrary reasons. It took the whole complete and utter devastation of WW2 to make us understand that perhaps war isnt the glorious magnificient honoroable cool thing we had thought it was. Too bad the idea doesnt seem to have spread.

 

[snip] [personal comment removed] - Hacken Slash
Perhaps we're reluctant to war because we have suffered several... We know what it's like to have innocent people/ inhabitants killed... We know what depravation is... We had wars fighted out in our countries, in OUR cities... We had to rebuild everything from scratch several times...
Never, ever dare to say that we're appeasing... We KNOW what wars bring, cause our people suffered them and only resort to them as last option... We don't need them to keep our economy thriving, nor to gather the country behind a common point of view...

the US has never suffered a war in it's territory (ok, pearl harbour, but that was an attack, not a war), so you shouldn't ever think to know what war is, and certainly never pretend to know what it is, and SURELY never look down on people because they are more careful than you...

While you had professional soldiers dying, or mothers, daughters and wives died...

[ February 05, 2005, 00:08: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

Khazadman - Such generalizations about Europeans are not warranted. Europeans are hardly all in league with "murderers."

Lord Sven - Please refrain from name calling in your responses.

Both these actions are violations of the forum rules.

[ February 05, 2005, 00:24: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

My exact point... You guys suffered 1 war (ok, 2 wars, if you take the independence fight with it), on your territory, and by your statement itself you acknowledge that those wars are horrendous (higher casualty rate than any other conflict), so why are you so eager than to take war to other peoples countries under false pretenses?
The problem is we have suffered wars of which people are still alive and those are quite useful in remembering us what the meaning of a war just is... All our grandparents were affected by the second world war, they remember us what it was that people came begging to the doors of farms for a few potatoes or for a few slices of bread, because they were starving...

That is why at least you should inform yourself and your people correctly when going to war, and not do it under false pretenses...

 

Well, that's the point. Bush doesn't get anything. Or....

Haven't we've had the same before?

America, thy name is Don Quichote de la Mancha, to repeat myself.

OK, with what army and with what money ?

And that would have been... joining operation Barbarossa ?

Well, yes. On the other hand, we the Europeans would have a joined force to handle such thing, what would the Americans say ?

I always said first we take Rangoon, than we take Grozny.

Ah, no, they attack me culinarily with onions. And I like it.

Baby, I am at the zenith of virtue... Well, maybe not. But I say so.


Can't they come up with something new ? Are so deprived of any imagination ? nothing new in 3 whole years ?

[ February 04, 2005, 23:28: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

Well, by asking that question you acknowledge a flaw in your logic, therefor you hold a flawed mindset in this discussion. You are uninformed.
And since discussion is a mental war, you should not have appeared in this thread, am I correct on that?

 

"My exact point... You guys suffered 1 war (ok, 2 wars, if you take the independence fight with it)"

Don't talk about history if you've no idea what you're talking about. We've had multiple wars on our soil, even more if you count the ones Europe brought to us before we became independent. War of 1812? (This is one where we had to evacuate our capital. The British burned the President's House to the ground, and we erected the White House to replace it.) Spanish-American war? Mexican-American war?

More on topic, though, one has to acknowledge that America has scarcely been better in the appeasement it's been involved in. For instance, during WWI, we provided equipment and food to Germany, Austria-Hungary, and that lot (for increased prices, and about 800% less materials than we sold France and Britain, if I recall correctly.) Most of our crusading and entering wars have not been because of the American people, but because of intelligent and brave presidents that are willing to lead the people into a time of trouble - Roosevelt, for instance, has been said to have sacrificed Pearl Harbor for the greater good of becoming involved in the war against the Axis (why did you think so little of the American navy was destroyed in the attack?) I would say that it's not a matter of the people of the different countries as much as the leaders they elect to represent them. Americans look for different qualities in leaders, I would guess. Europe has more of a cultural fear of war than Americans do, in large part due to the lack of civilian devastation to the US during wars it's been involved in. Losing a son isn't quite the same as losing a family, a town, a city.

 

Primo: And as I wrote: That is why at least you should inform yourself and your people correctly when going to war, and not do it under false pretenses... So this is primairily a responsability of leaders of the state, and last time I checked, I'm still not one...
Secundo: I told inform yourself, and how can one inform himself better than to ask questions, instead of making unfounded statements? I tried to give you a chance to response on the content of the post, yet you replied on the form of it... That is already a response in itself. Also try to remind that not everyone is native in English, and that other languages give other connotations to expressions, which once literally translated may lead to a seemingly circular thinking pattern... Mix that together with someone that rather debates about the form than about the content of a post, and you get this reply...
Tertio: It might also have been a retorical question, since everyone knows and sees how the US thinks about the world and thus everyone knows the answer to that question

1/ Ok I was wrong about the war of 1812, but I considered that war as a last struggle of Britain to get a hold of the US and thus I classified it under the Independence War (My mistake)
2/ Humm, I always thought that the Mexican-American war and the Spanish-American were primairily fought on non-US territory? The US annexed it after it won, but they took the battle to mexico and Cuba/Fillipines...
3/ Even if I'm mistaken on all 3 cases, shall we compare those wars with the wars that were fought in Europe between 1789 and nowadays? Has the US had a single conflict on their soil in the 20th century? I think you'll have to look careful to find a single year between 1900 and 1945 where there was no fighting in Europe... And those people still survive nowadays to tell their tales. Let's face it, when compared to almost every other region, the US has had (if you want recently) little bloodshed on its lands.

QED

[ February 05, 2005, 00:24: Message edited by: Lord Sven ]

 

I dont know what polls Herr Döpfner has in mind here. What I do know is that the Germans werent too extatic about the idea of a Muslim Holiday.
In fact the Germans feel rather uneasy about the developement of certain foreign groups. And so do I.

While I disagree with most of what has been said, I agree with the quintessence of it. Europe needs to be careful of what is happening inside its borders. Van Gogh's murder made that much clear enough.
The answer to a threat cannot be tolerance. We would be well advised to draw a line, and quickly, in order to protect all who live on our continent. And that, of course, includes the Muslims. I somehow doubt that the female Muslims would enjoy the abuse and oppression some whacko extremists have in petto for them. Nevermind that some already suffer whilst we see fit to ignore it. Its not our culture etc pp. Confronting this problem could, after all, cause unpleasantness.
Oh well.
Nor does it seem bright that we are lolling about placidly while our muslim fellows are being radicalized from outside. Saudi Arabia?

Truly a topic one can become frustrated about. Its all so absurd. We will see how this situation plays out. I fear it wont go well with multiculti hyped everywhere.

One other thing: How can someone come up with a notion like 'gassing them Muslims' in reponse to this article? Strikes me as the typical hysteric and unbalanced reply aimed at antagonizing others, thereby making discussion of a vital problem impossible.
Or is it because the autor is a German?! Hmmm.

 

The person that committed the mumber will be dealt with according to the dutch justice... He will LUCKILY not be dealt with otherwise because he's muslim... It was a murder in the first degree, whether or not the murderer was a muslim that felt offended by the persons vision on his religion or a female christian that discovered her man cheated on her and decided to kill him MAY not make any difference...

 

Hmmm, somehow this topic kinda provokes me...
I suppose this is, first, because it generalizes a bit: "Europe, thy name..." and all that. Well, I somehow can't agree with the article. Sorry, just can't. Here's why:
1. I have been active on a few forums and get tired of someone generalizing "Europe". I suppose most people here don't do so, but something for those who do, especially those from the USA: guys, your current president blamed Kelly for belittling the countries who sent troops to Iraq when he said the US was doing it alone. I suppose he was right. The author of the article makes the same mistake - a lot of european countries sent troops there even though, as it happened, the casus belli was moot. What about them? I am Bulgarian and even though I do not support the war in Iraq, Bulgarian soldiers have died for it. An Italian or Pole, to name just the two of the most present nations, would be no less offended. Even if they do not support the war, such a generalization would be insulting. Besides, Iraq - as I suppose that is the issue here - had much less to do with terrorism than Afghanistan. In Afghanistan today, European troops outnumber American ones in a ratio of tens to one. One thing I'm sure about, though, is that France and Germany combined have over 10 times the people that Britain and the States have. Check the NATO official page, if you don't believe me.
- On the issue of appeasement: it's easy to criticize - when you are far away. Concerning Hitler I don't rightly know, perhaps England and France weren't ready for an offensive war - something not that hard to believe about countries that had hardly come out of the Great Recession and still had not forgotten the devastation of WWI. No disrespect for anyone from the US, but I think comparing the destruction from the "Great War" to that from any war in America would do the millions of casualties a great dishonor. As for appeasement to communism: guys, please. Just how far were Wien, or Bonn, or even Rome or Paris from the Eastern Block? In the case of War (with capital "w") Washington would be unlikely to be overrun, unlike a "few" cities in Europe. Just a few facts:
- in the end of WWII, the USSR had 3 FRONTS deployed against Nazi Germany. I'm not talking about divisions or even armies, I am talking about fronts. That is without taking in the reserves. A fight directly after WWII would have been nigh suicidal for any european country. Eventually, they might be liberated - though this is debatable. And until then? Even in the 80's, the Soviet Union deployed significant land forces in Europe. I think they were the only country that had specialized tank armies in the world, and while I am no military mastermind, that would indicate a powerful land combat potential. Again, if a war erupted, even if they were eventually driven back, they might be strong enough to at least initially capture several European capitals. No country would risk being overran, I suppose. I don't understand anyone being incensed about the fact that several European countries tried to get along with the USSR. Given that they would be the ones that would suffer most in case of war, should they be the ones most actively pushing for it?
- As far as Van Gogh's murder goes, it proves that in Europe there are islamic radicals, but nothing more. Assassins, regardless of their religion, should be persecuted and brought to justice, but a country that makes claim to be civilized and tolerant should not punish all of their religious or ethnic group. Well, if a relative of mine were killed, perhaps I would not feel this way, but I'd hardly be an objective party, would I? Being careful about anyone who might try to spread radical ideas - radical enough to endanger the existing political order - is something different, I agree.
On the topic of the holiday, I think it more of a political pandering than anything. I don't follow German politics that closely, but if a sufficient proportion of the German electorate are of Turkish origin, it would be little surprise if a party tries to show their concern so it can cash in on their vote. Multiculturalism and compassion in politics? That would imply politicians are compassionate, altruistic individuals who care nothing about power. Am I supposed to believe this?

[ February 05, 2005, 01:15: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

I don't usually start threads in the AoDA / AoLS...but I almost did over this. I understand the charges against Europe in many ways, but Mr. Hanson's article says it better than I ever could.

I reject the stereptypes he portrays as equally as ignorant as those of "stupid Americans", but the points are valid and well spoken.

Read it carefully.

 

Just to point out, the infamous Yalta collusion was not only of European politicians. All major allied powers sold Eastern Europe to Stalin, including Poland, which offered much much more of a presence in the war than France did, and even paid for it from its own evacuated treasury. The restored France ended up one of the top four powers, the restored Poland... well, here's the problem: there was no restored Poland. Good morning, uncle Joe.

However, the tradition is inherently European. Not like I prefer the Gulf Wars Episode II kind of approach.