<$BlogRSDUrl$>
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
What the German media don't say

Via LGF, I found this impressive speech by Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi delegation to the UN General Assembly. He states (emphasis mine):
[...] As for the second truth, it is that the liberation of Iraq, and what happened is indeed liberation, could not have been achieved without the determination of President George W. Bush and the commitment of the Coalition. At the forefront are the United States of America and Great Britain. If today we hear the voices of those in doubt of the intentions of the American and British governments in undertaking this liberation, we invite them to go and visit the mass graves, to visit the dried up marshes, to visit the gassed city of Halabja, to examine the list of the missing whose very right to live was taken away from them by the regime.
I have not found any mentioning of this in the German media. A visit to the mass graves would be recommended indeed to those OK-Saddam-had-bad-manners-but-no-war-never!-posers who weirdly fade out the atrocities of the previous Iraqi regime, even to those who heroically claim they are not armchair pundits. But I've mentioned before that fading out atrocities is common practice in Germany; there was a recent TV show here, for example, romanticising the GDR (German Democratic Republic). At the same time, "Bush = Hitler"-comparisons are widely acceptable among many Germans; this, of course, is nothing else but a white-washing of the holocaust, deriving either from a remarkable and dangerous lack of knowledge or plain malice and hate. As Fraterslibertas states,
A true appreciation of the scale and scope of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis should give pause to those who label Bush 'Hitler' and call Ashcroft a Nazi. I believe that it is insulting to the memories of the victims of the Nazi regime to use those labels with so little thought. If Bush were like Hitler, post 9/11 events would have unfolded quite a bit differently. Muslims would have been beaten in the streets of the US, some to death. Mosques would have burned. Muslim shops would have been looted. Legislation would have been passed stripping Muslims of all rights and within months camps would have been built. Muslim men, women, and children would begin to disappear into them never to be seen again. The Democratic party would have been outlawed along with all other political parties and most of its leaders killed or sent to camps. The media would be taken over and run by the state and any attempts at dissent ruthlessly crushed. Michael Moore would not be writing books. He would have been strangled with piano wire and left hanging from a meat hook (a heavy duty, reinforced meat hook to be sure). A vicious war would have been waged against all Muslim nations. Kabul, Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Riyadh (for starters) would have been turned to sand. All oil fields in the Middle East would have been occupied. Citizens in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan would be bombed, brutalized, driven from their homes, and eventually killed to make room for the repopulation of those regions by Texans (Bush's volk). I could go on and on with this but you get my the point.
Interesting enough, Islamofascists and their sympathisers - whose values are pretty much the same as those of the Nazis - are not in the focus of attention, nor are, for example, the ridiculous staged elections in Chechnya or the war going on there for more than ten years, led with utmost brutality; I have not yet seen transparents comparing Putin to Hitler or a Nazi. No, this term is reserved for Israel or the United States; Sharon, for example, "escalated" the ME conflict by attacking root structures of terrorism in Syria, as I've read in a German paper. Of course, you know, this suicide bombing thing was not really nice, but assailing those who intend to destroy Israel? Let's not "escalate" it; a suicide bombing is sad, but it doesn't "escalate" anything. In other words, such an opinion implies, "Israel, shut up and tolerate those suicide bombings" - i.e. tolerate your destruction. Jörg Zink, a German priest, has stated (in German) a few months ago in a German TV show (own translation, emphasis mine):
I admire them [Palestinian suicide bombers] because their cause and the cause of their people or religion [...] is so important to them that they give their lives for it. These are not suicide bombers, these are courageous young people who give themselves fully over to their cause. [...] Of course they are lied to, but the fact that they are derogatorily called "suicide bombers" is simply not just.
A report was made against him, but the senior prosecutor in Stuttgart dropped it (in German) because, according to him, Zink (own translation) "...probably simply wanted to state his admiration for the disposition to suicide, without the intention of judging the implications for third persons". Had Zink stated his admiration for the RAF, he would have been in more trouble.
Davids Medienkritik has a link to a fine article (in German) by Henryk Broder in der Spiegel (yes... they occasionally let Broder publish to create the impression of being "balanced"), where Broder states (translated by Raymond Drake):
Concurrently, state sovereignty can be quite a bother now and then for even the most enlightened of European statesman. For example, in the war against Milosovic when NATO bombed Belgrade - without a UN mandate. Or earlier this year, when French intervention troops marched into the Ivory Coast to evacuate endangered French citizens - without invitation from the local government. No one got upset about the flagrant violation of the Ivory Coast's sovereignty. Apparently it doesn't matter whose sovereignty is violated but instead who the violated party is. And in the case of Israel, a couple of special rules apply.
Indeed, all those who firmly rejected the war in Iraq turn silent when asked about the pacifist German government in Kosovo or Afghanistan, or about the French intervention in Ivory Coast. It's such a funny obsession with Israel and the United States, isn't it?

Leo Bauer has a very interesting essay on the topic of Islamofascism, where he states:
Islamofascism is the combination of the revisionist elements of the West with the theocratic elements of Islam, sired in an unprecedented inter-cultural marriage of the Western Antiimperialists with the Islamist tyrants. [...] Therefore, nothing could be further from truth than the assumption that Islamofascism was just a pejorative term of self-righteous Westerners to draw a mark of Cain on an "indigenous" culture, like some Western commentators concerned about racist prejudice have suggested. In fact there are Westerners who promote cultural relativism, a racist view of other cultures, by arguing they were naturally imcapable to adapt the universal concept of individual liberty. But one will find them among those who deny to speak about Islamofascism, not among those who do.
It is not only the Islamofascists themselves who are a danger, though they are the most imminent one; a threat also arises from terror-excusers, be they motivated by a false political correctness, dangerous moral relativism or darker motives.