Why did Nazis deport the Jews of occupied territories to their extermination if Hitler had issues only with those within Germany's borders?
I'm not by any means an expert on the Nazis (haven't yet got around to reading Shirer's "Rise & Fall of the Third Reich), but I will venture a guess:
The Nazis accused the Jews of being a fifth column-type threat from within, with no loyalty to Germany, indeed I believe they used the term "backstabbers" interchangeably with "Jews". If I'm not mistaken, the Nazis believed that Jews by their very nature, in other words, a priori, are driven to destroy and debase the societies they live in, anywhere in the world, either through betrayal or at the very least by destroying and debasing the "purity of blood" of "superior races".
Maybe people here don't talk so much of "purity of blood", at least not openly. (In Israel, Liberals and Leftists talk about ensuring that "Israel retains its Jewish character"; the religious Right is much more blunt).
Although the Nazis committed horrible crimes against humanity, I would suggest that they didn't land here from another planet, nor were they made in some factory. They were all human beings, even the worst of them. Pretending that everyone else is immune from the sickness that afflicted them, that they were uniquely evil in a way that can neither be explained nor compared to any other instance of frenzied hatred/fearful passivity, is a dangerous self-delusion.
Few people imagined, at the time, that it would all end so badly. I don't think that Hitler, for example, ever actually spelled out that he was planning to kill all the Jews. I believe he warned about the terrible threat they represented to Germany and to "civilized people", and spoke of doing everything necessary to protect Germany from her enemies, horrible, disgusting people, who hated Germans ("for their freedom"?) and would not rest until they had dragged the whole world down to their own level of moral and physical degradation.
As everybody keeps saying, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The problem is we all disagree about what the lessons of history actually are.
My point is, that the Nazis are maybe not a completely bizarre and unique aberration in the history of mankind. We humans are hard-wired with an atavistic "lizard-brain", the true Serpent in the Garden of Eden. It is not, unfortunately, that difficult to make a "Nazi" -- the recipe is a very simple one:
Step 1: identify a group of people, characterize them as a terrifying existential threat, making sure to demonize and dehumanize them through constant agitprop;
Step 2: accuse anyone who defends their human or legal rights as a sissy-girl, or worse, a sympathizer who weakens the "good side" from within;
Step 3: get away with anything, no matter how cruel, unjust or extreme, because you can, until someone strong enough comes along, who can stop you.
Given the right atmosphere of general insecurity (which as we all know can be nudged along via a shocking fire, or a well-aimed airplane or two
, Voila! Instant Nazis.
So, my second point is that it should be the behaviour that should raise our disgust and condemnation, rather than channeling our self-righteous anger and hatred at specifically Nazi symbols. By patting ourselves on the back because we don't raise our hands in the straight-armed salute or wear swastika armbands, I think we've dangerously missed the point.
By accepting the "Holocaust" as a mystical cult in which it is an article of faith that the Nazis were uniquely evil by some kind of (what? mutation? infection? demonic possession?) one-time accident, and that "the Jews" were, are and forever will be, by the sole virtue of being Jewish, the eternal victims who must never be criticized or held accountable for their own actions, is just stupid, and foolhardy, and paves the way for more crimes against innocent people.
Congressman: ‘I Fear…We Will Have Many More Muslims In The United States’Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) issued a letter to constituents earlier this month in which he declares, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States” if we do not adopt “strict immigration policies.” ...In the letter, Goode references the election of Muslim Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), and warns “American citizens” to “wake up” or “there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/19/goode-islam/
In response to Senator Leahy's condemnation of American disregard of Geneva Conventions in their treatment of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (a small fraction of whom have been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime AT ALL, and keeping in mind that some of the prisoners are as young as 14 years old):
The Senator’s claims present an astonishing view of what the political left stands for. He argues for accommodation for
the worst killers in world history and according them the status as prisoners of war. For the uninformed reader, such a status would recognize these
murdering thugs as military combatants — and they are NOT affiliated with any nation’s armed force. Leahy’s statement is also interesting because while he claims that Gitmo has failed to make our nation safer, he conveniently overlooks the fact that
incarcerated terrorists pose absolutely NO threat to the safety of any American.
If there is a “stain of Guantanamo,” it is that the American political left has used it to elevate its own role to that of spokesman for terrorist activities. Claiming their concern for “human rights,” Senator Leahy and people just like him actually encourage
terrorist — insurgent activities.
Terrorists are not entirely stupid; they realize that when the political left speaks out against administration policies in the war on terror, such statements effectively encourage insurgents to keep on fighting. In this context, one wonders how many American soldiers will die as a result of Senator Leahy’s words of encouragement?
Guantanamo Bay has not “damaged our credibility.” If anything, the existence of Gitmo sends just the opposite signal to
murdering cut-throats. If we fail to kill you on the field of battle, we are going to send you away to a tropical island, removing you from your country, your family, and every one of your normal points of reference except for your religion. We are going to keep you in such a place for a very long time.
Let’s also keep in mind that
detainees at Gitmo have been introduced to a quality of life that they have not previously experienced. They eat regularly. They bathe regularly. They are given clean clothes to wear. They are even provided with lavatories and toilet paper, something that few of them have at home. They receive regular medical checkups, provided with prayer rugs, the Qu’ran, prayer beads, and they are shown the direction toward Mecca. Yes, it is true that they are imprisoned — such is the price of their
murdering, barbaric behaviors.
These
slugs are not kept in pits filled with human filth, and they are not hooked up to electrodes. They may be deprived of sleep, and they may be subjected to hours upon hours of Michael Jackson music, but that is not torture. Torture is pulling out their finger nails, driving bamboo slivers inside toenails, pouring water into their nostrils, shocking them with electricity, making them stand for hours in the hot sun, making them work under intolerable conditions, feeding them slop, and subjecting them to bizarre medical experiments. Those are the things the Japanese and Germans did in World War II, by the way, and how I would define “inhumane.”
Senator Leahy is a liar. The program as it exists at Guantanamo Bay is very credible because its detainees are not killing innocent people. He is a charlatan, too. Having been elected and sworn to preserve and protect us, he expresses greater concern for
murdering barbarians than he does for the rights of innocent victims — which has become a standard for the American political left.
http://caosblog.com/category/guest-blogger/mustang/
From the
screened comments section in Brilliant Middle East Expert Daniel Pipes' website:
America, and the principles for which she stands, democracy and freedom, are at war with Islam. Islam's clearly stated objectives and goals in the Koran are in clear conflict with those of America. Islam's soldiers have already infiltrated America in many areas including the military. (Remember Sgt. Asan Akbar and his grenade attack on the 101st Airborne HQ in Kuwait?) It's propoganda agents and recruiters, the Imams from Saudi Arabia, work their subterfuge through out the wahabi mosques in America, adding to their numbers daily. Like the trojan horse, the enemy has already breached America's walls and have and will continue to wreak havoc from within. Profiling is expensive both in terms of man power and sheer logistics and is not enough to assure the safety of all Americans.
The most cost effective solution to the problem of preventing terrorist propogation and attacks at home is the internment of all muslims in America. Now before all you left-wing Kennedys and Hillarys get your panties in a bunch, consider the alternative: if just one terrorist cell succeeds in by-passing our leaking security systems, thousands or even millions of American lives could be lost if such a cell were to detonate a nuke in a major American city. Is it worth the risk just to placate a tiny percentage of the American population?
This is WAR and in times of war, the needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many.
The Japanese internment during WW2 should serve as a shining example of how effective this solution was. I don't recall any terrorist attack on U.S. soil during the internment. If it worked so well back then, it should work just as good now.
For the duration of this 'war on terror' a.k.a. war on Islam, only two options should be given to muslims residing in America: Internment or Deportation to an Islamic country, say, Saudi Arabia. Any muslim choosing internment in America should have to forfeit their property in order to cover the cost of internment so the over-burdened U.S. taxpayer won't have to foot the bill. In addition, the Saudi sponsored mosques could be sold to private developers and converted into multi-family dwelling/mixed residential/light commercial use to also assist in the cost of muslim internment.The cost savings alone in not having to profile and survail every muslim peep should be enough to change the mind of even the most ardent liberal. This money could be funnelled into the war effort abroad for a speedy victory and the quick return home of U.S. soldiers. The savings could also be used to improve health care, crime reduction, education, and local infrastructure.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/47920
And from the Boss himself (consultant to presidents, leading academic, think-tank guy):
For years, it has been my position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population.
And so, I was encouraged by a just-released Cornell University opinion survey that finds nearly half the U.S. population agreeing with this proposition. Specifically, 44 percent of Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention toward Muslims living in America, either by registering their whereabouts, profiling them, monitoring their mosques, or infiltrating their organizations.
Also encouraging, the survey finds the more people follow TV news, the more likely they are to support these common-sense steps. Those who are best informed about current issues, in other words, are also the most sensible about adopting self-evident defensive measures.
That's the good news; the bad news is the near-universal disapproval of this realism. Leftist and Islamist organizations have so successfully intimidated public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.
Professor Daniel Pipes
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archi ... nment.html
Most Guantanamo prisoners are not even accused of hostile acts against USby Jan Sutton, Reuters News Agency
Feb. 9, 2006
The majority of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are not accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and only a small percentage were captured by U.S. forces, a review of government documents has found.
...
The study said 55 percent were not accused in the documents of committing hostile acts against the United States and its coalition allies.
Among those where the location of capture was listed, only 5 percent were captured by U.S. forces. The rest were taken by Pakistani forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or by the Northern Alliance, an Afghan militia that helped U.S. forces oust the Taliban.
Some were sold to the United States by bounty hunters who then disappeared, making it difficult to verify their claims that the detainee had terrorist connections, the report said.
...
[The report] included copies of leaflets distributed in Afghanistan urging people to "get wealth and power beyond your dreams" by turning in Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.
...
Only 8 percent were characterized in the government documents as al Qaeda fighters and 16 percent as Taliban fighters, the report said.
Some of the rest were considered al Qaeda or Taliban "members," under a definition so broad it could apply to anyone believed to have ever spoken to an al Qaeda or Taliban member, the report said.
Others were deemed "associates" of terrorist organizations, though half the groups cited are not on U.S. government lists of groups it considers terrorist organizations.
The report questions whether associating with the Taliban really makes someone an enemy combatant, since the Taliban government controlled nearly all aspects of Afghan citizens' lives, and conscripted boys as young as 12 to fight.
One detainee was considered an enemy combatant because he was conscripted into Taliban forces as a cook's assistant, the report said.
Other evidence cited in the documents as proof of enemy combatant status included possessing AK-47 or Kalashnikov rifles, staying at guest houses while traveling through Afghanistan, possessing a Casio watch or wearing olive drab clothing.
U.S. officials at Guantanamo have repeatedly said that the detainees provide valuable intelligence information and were carefully selected from among more than 8,000 men taken captive during the Afghanistan war.
A few dozen of those who underwent the 2004 enemy combatant reviews have since been released. The population has been whittled down to about 490 through diplomatic negotiations and through an annual review process that continues.
Only 10 have been charged with war crimes and Pentagon officials have said only 50 to 75 ever would be charged.
http://www.unknownnews.org/0602100209GuantanamoB.htmlGuantanamo is not a conventional military prison. It's an ad hoc laboratory for the perfection of the CIA psychological torture. Guantanamo is a complete construction. It's a system of total psychological torture, designed to break down every detainee contained therein, designed to produce a state of hopelessness and despair that leads, tragically, ... to suicide.
http://www.unknownnews.org/0606180613McCoy.html
