« Open Thread | Main | Server Migration »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Police_(Holocaust)

"Jewish Ghetto Police (German: Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei, Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst), also known as the Jewish Order Service and referred by the Jews as the Jewish Police, were the auxiliary police units organized in the Jewish ghettos by the local Judenrat councils under German Nazi orders.[1] The Jewish Order Service was also active in some of the Nazi concentration camps.

Members of the Judendienstordnung did not have official uniforms (often having just an armband) and were not allowed to carry firearms. They were used by the Germans primarily for securing the deportation of other Jews to the concentration camps.

The Judendienstordnung were often comprised of Jews who usually had no prior association with the community they oversaw (especially after the roundups and deportations to extermination camps began), and who could be relied upon to follow German orders.[1] "

It's indeed irritating, that 78 %. But at least 22 % of us are still sane individualists with something of a survival instinct. If my history's correct, that is actually not a bad percentage for the reflexively leftist Jewish nation.

The real question is how reliable is this report?


the terror group was asked to keep the contacts secret until after last week's elections, according to a senior Hamas official.


Hamas receives funding from Saudi Arabia, unknown individuals and Iran, and has been declared a terrorist group by the State Department and other countries.
If BO has been secretly consorting with a declared enemy of the United States and its allies to manipulate the 2008 election, this constitutes High Crimes and Misdemeanors and would provide grounds for impeachment.

Unfortunately, even if it came up as true (unbelievable as the story is coming from Hamas) House and Senate democrats would only wink at this, while republicans would look down at the ground while the media buried it.

Funny thing too... 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudies... and then-we-invaded-Iraq and and let Bin Laden get away in Afganistan. W-T-F!!!

And why on earth would Iran be against us ...we've tried to be so nice to them ever since ...um 1953...

It the words of Yosemite Sam... "IT JUST DONT ADD UP"! That is unless... maybe... we are fuckups too? NAWww...! we are exceptional!... god is on our side! Every other country on earth, with the exception of those that do as their told, is is a fuckup... but not us... well maybe the liberal/democrat half of this country but not US... not us... not us... not us.... n n n not us...s..s

fez try to make your points through coherent sentences.

Right now it seems like you're saying, "The U.S. makes mistakes, so we're no better than terror groups."

That line of thinking is, how do I say this gently, idiotic? Stupid? Foolish? Not supported by reality? Hypocritical? Brainless? Gullible?

Take your pick.

fez gives a nice example of liberal logic:

1. A implies X
   
2. B implies Y
   
3. X implies Y
   
4. Therefore B implies X
   

1. Iran exports terrorism
   
2. America supports corrupt governments
   
3. Terrorism = corruption
   
4. Therefore America is a terrorist
   

This fez character (what are you, a Shriner?) uses several informal fallacies to bolster his formal fallacy: i.e., Total incoherence, sarcasm, scattershots and an understandable reference to a cartoon character.

Any further questions about why someone might mistake you for a complete and total moron?

The problem Cowlove is that we need to look at the root causes of terrorism... I'm sure you've heard this before but terrorism is a technique, and terrorists use that technique to try to achieve a goal. There is a interview with Bin Laden in 98 by ABC's John Miller where he makes specific demands. Of course he is a religious fanatic but he may have some legitimate points ...imagine if Pat Roberson had actually made it to President here in 88... who he might have attacked because God told him to do it...

The right talks about terrorists as if they are all the same and just really, really terrible people, evil people that only want to be terrible and evil and terrorize where actually there are Irish terrorists, Basque terrorists, Islamic terrorists, etc and they all have their own ax to grind, bombs to throw... and certainly a fair number are out of their minds but then ...how would you feel if for example you were for example just hanging with your family and friends at a wedding party and all of a sudden... half your extended family was blown away? Would you call the person who survived and now wanted to kill those he thought resposible a terrorist? And we've made enough mistakes in the middle east like a CIA supported overthrow of Irans elected leadership in 53, supporting Saddam in his war against Iraq...

Oh my god! I'm actualy writing like I expect a thoughtful answer and I know your just going to start in with the hurtful name calling and pointing out the occasional spelling error and as always trying to hurt my "sensitive guy" feelings... I almost fell for it...

fez,

Congratulations on the first post I've seen from you that didn't look as if it had been composed originally in crayon.

My definition of a terrorist is someone or some group who "purposely kills innocent people to further their cause." That makes all terrorists evil. Their cause is irrelevant if that is their method of achieving their goal.

No matter what your twisted view of the CIA may be, the United States military bends over backwards to avoid the killing of innocent while terrorists of all stripes go out of their way to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Keep up the nice writing. You'll get a response worthy of your post.

OK, FEZ; let's address the root causes of MUSLIM terrorism!

MUSLIMS invaded Spain in the ninth century, a couple of CENTURYS BEFORE the First Crusade. MUSLIMS and Liberals cite the Crusades as justification for terrorism in the 20th and 21st century.

So just WHO ATTACKED WHOM?

But what I really want to know is:
Since muslims murder gays just for being gay and murder women for things that wouldn't even raise a single eyebrow in a "Christian Fundamentalist" household, why are Liberals AND YOU defending them instead of burning mosques and calling for all-out war on islam?

Your kind are either fools, liers, or unbelieveable hypocrits. I dare you to bring this up the next time you meet with some of your "enlightened" friends.

fuz:


Do you really mean to stand by these statements?

Terrorists and their intentional slaughtering of innocent civilians as a "technique" can in any sense be compared to our military guys making a mistake on a legitimate mission that results in civilian casualties…?

OB Laden is equivalent to Pat Roberson…?




you’re really just giggling around the library computer in your institution aren’t you?

Seriously, I’m taking my time here to tell you that there’s no rational basis for such comparisons. Unless maybe you’re a grieving civilian propagandized by barbarians, it should be clear that the U.S. military does not use terrorism as a doctrine of war.

This may be the way you look at the root causes of terrorism but you may be better off looking at the root causes of imbecility.

Be careful Fez... but your post is quite correct and I would add the whole middle east has been the gameboard for a few western powers, even without the problem of Israel, for a hundred years or more ... who knows what they would look like now if their cultures hadn't been perverted western governments trying to "have their way" one way or another.

I just don't think you'll ever make any inroads with these people on this wacky site... their heads would indeed explode if they ever actually opened their metaphorical eyes... they can't even begin to imagine laughing at themselves like we do ...check it out...

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

Fez & doG seem to be a retread of hash & hashfan.

Fez says something and dog hurriedly comments how great it was. Siamese twins maybe?

Anyway, a terrorist is someone who kills innocents to promote their ideals.

A soldier is someone who kills soldiers of an opposing country. See if you two can keep that straight. Learn it, Live it.

fez,

Well done! I can tell you put a lot of thought into that and I would lying if I said I didn't appreciate it. The point has been made already, but I thought I'd hammer it home.

Your argument relies on some dubious logic. Let's review.

1. There are many kinds of terrorists.
2. The U.S. (like any nation at war) has inflicted collateral damage as a result of its operations in Iraq.
3. Therefore, the U.S. military is comprised of terrorists.

If you don't agree with this summary then correct me where I'm wrong in your response. As an aside, I'm not summarizing to make you seem like a simpleton. Rather, it's to be clear about the argument so I can be equally clear with my response.

So...

1. Certainly, there are many types of terrorists. The single, unifying characteristic of all terrorist organizations is their employement of terror. They employ terror by killing civilians. It's quite simple at face value. The shock value of a car bomb, beheading, kidnapping, or hijacking is obvious, no? No nation wants it's citizens killed, so using that as a threat or direct action is (in the minds of terrorists) a great way to attain concessions. So, it seems we are in agreement on this point, correct? Let's continue.

2. Unfortunately, you're right again. Collateral damage occurs, certainly. It's a hideous reminder that war is ugly, as if we needed any reminders. The U.S. military, brilliant and well-trained as it is, is a victim of human error, bad information, unfavorable conditions, etac. just like any nation at war.

3. This is where your logic disappears. Collateral damage, by definition, is damage that occurs as a result of intended damage. I would submit that if the U.S. military were targeting civilian populations as a means to an end, it would cease being a collection of armed forces and become a terrorist group. That, too, is by definition. However, giving aid to refugees and warning city populations of impending operations is the polar opposite targeting civilians. It's an attempt to minimize any collateral damage to zero.

So, your 1. and 2. do not lead to 3. Not at all. Not even a little. Real combatants don't target civilians and terrorists will never have equal standing, moral or otherwise, with a single member of the military. Do you understand me? Targeting civilians is barbaric, hateful, and cowardly.

I look forward to your response. Thanks for taking the time to make a thoughtful comment.

"who knows what they would look like now if their cultures hadn't been perverted western governments trying to "have their way" one way or another."

I don't know what they'd look like doG/fez, but I imagine they'd be trying to kill each other just as fiercely as they've been for thousands of years. Remember, civilization actually grew out of this area in the first place, so you'd be hard-pressed to convince me the problem lies with the West. I encourage you to try though.

78% of Jewish voters, voting for their own demise Puzzling......

[Since muslims murder gays just for being gay and murder women for things that wouldn't even raise a single eyebrow in a "Christian Fundamentalist" household, why are Liberals AND YOU defending them instead of burning mosques and calling for all-out war on islam?]

Its cognitive dissonance caused by an overdose of moral/cultural relativism from the Idiot Box and what laughingly passes for public education these days.

Another topic I never hear any of these so-called 'feminists' ever carry on about is female genital mutilation and honor killings; here in the US or abroad. Not to mention the abominable way that women are treated in Muslim nations or communities.

Why would that be?

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To See How Empty Lives Are

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=45932089

Must see! :-)

Funny thing too... 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudies... and then-we-invaded-Iraq and and let Bin Laden get away in Afganistan. W-T-F!!!

And why on earth would Iran be against us ...we've tried to be so nice to them ever since ...um 1953...

It the words of Yosemite Sam... "IT JUST DONT ADD UP"! That is unless... maybe... we are fuckups too? NAWww...! we are exceptional!... god is on our side! Every other country on earth, with the exception of those that do as their told, is is a fuckup... but not us... well maybe the liberal/democrat half of this country but not US... not us... not us... not us.... n n n not us...s..s

Posted by: fez at November 12, 2008 1:54 PM

Hey, Fez! You may not have noticed this but YOUR GUY WON!!!!11!!!!111!!

YOU NOW HOLD THE KEYS IN YOUR HAND TO REPAIRING THE DAMAGE THAT THE TERRIBLE FASCIST USA HAS DONE TO INNOCENT MUSLIMS AND MADE THEM INTO TERRORISTS!

By your logic we should see at least some reduction in terrorist acts, terrorist recruitment and so forth, at least for part of the next four years.

Oh but wait, since the guy who is going to turn Hamas into nice peaceful neighbours to the Jews by giving them everything they want was elected, they have RESUMED firing rockets into Israel. They'd stopped, previously, dont'cher know.

Sooooooo in conclusion we have two possibilities.

One of those would be that you're right, and the US is a racist hegemonic colonialist imperialist oppressor; and so is Israel. You and Hamas agree on this point.

OR

The US has been basically doing the best it could in a world where almost none of its fellow countries have as good intentions as it does, and it has been forced to do some distasteful things in order to prevent the greater of two evils. That would entail you being sufficiently stupid and emotionally unstable to project evil motives onto the US at the behest of people like Hamas and the Iranian mullahs.

YEAH YOU ARE RIGHT that one of those is a much more likely scenario than the other one.

(And it's a little rich that you'd whine about "hurtful name-calling" after you come to this site and de facto call every American a God damned terrorist.)

Posted by: fez at November 12, 2008 3:43 PM

The right talks about terrorists as if they are all the same and just really, really terrible people, evil people that only want to be terrible and evil and terrorize where actually there are Irish terrorists, Basque terrorists, Islamic terrorists, etc and they all have their own ax to grind, bombs to throw...

Um yeah and how is that a sign that they are NOT evil and want to terrorize? Oh, they do it in the name of different causes, who knew. Well the fact that they are embracing diversity certainly goes a long way to making up for those little unpleasantness with the bombs in the market places, the passenger jets into the office towers, the van full of explosives that burned and blasted to death a couple hundred of MY PEOPLE in a night-club in Bali..

and certainly a fair number are out of their minds but then ...how would you feel if for example you were for example just hanging with your family and friends at a wedding party and all of a sudden... half your extended family was blown away?

For one thing you have yet to prove that that ever happened, or that anyone has used it as justification for terrorism. For two, your response to such an incident is indicative of your own mental state, no-one else's. For three you are presumably referring to the "insurgency" in Iraq - are you really, honestly suggesting that those fighting the US are exclusively made up of people who had their families blown apart by US bombs? Really? Do you even think these incredible claims through before you spout them out as gospel truth? Even if there was one terrorist, or a hundred, who got their start in their new career thanks to such collateral damage, they'd be a minority so insignificant as to be irrelevant. You're going to give a pass to the literally millions of people active in terrorist endeavours throughout the middle east and just lump the whole thing on the US, because of a story (for which you've yet to provide any evidence) which states that some guy's wedding got blown up? Really?

Oh, and yes, I mentioned your mental state. Luckily for everyone involved most Iraqis are not as insane and twisted as you quite clearly are. Hey, we here on the right are quite happy to concede that MODERATE Islam, like any moderate religion, can be a powerfuly centering force in a person's life - even if we don't share its beliefs. In fact I live in a Muslim country and I observe this all the time - I don't share the beliefs of Islam and I don't like agree with many of its practices (I am still referring to MODERATE Islam here, which is the religion of most of my close friends at present), but it is a moral code that has some inherent good in it. People like you lack even a moral code that is flawed but largely beneficial, as moderate Islam is. This is why you look for saviours in those who agree with you and devils in those who don't - why you believe Obama will heal the world and Republicans will destroy it. Why you think Hamas want peace and Israel want war.

Most Iraqis are moderate Muslims and thus it stands to reason they would be far better balanced emotionally and spiritually than you. Hence even if an Iraqi did suffer the tragic consequences of collateral damage, they would be far more likely than someone like you to blame that on the person who put their country into a state of fear and war to begin with - Saddam Hussein.

Would you call the person who survived and now wanted to kill those he thought resposible a terrorist?

Yes. And you would be to blame for his terrorism. While that person's emotion - even to the point of murderous rage - would be completely understandable, YOU and your kind would be to blame for telling him, since the very beginning of the conflict, that Americans are targeting him in order to steal his oil and kill Muslims.

HAD YOU NOT DONE SO he perhaps would have a far greater inclination to serve his country by joining the security forces and helping Americans fight against the REAL ENEMIES in his country.

HOWEVER since there is precisely ZERO evidence of any of the events you are claiming having occurred and been cited as the reason for terrorist acts, and you are discounting the centuries-old expansionist and warfaring tradition of RADICAL Islam entirely from your equation - despite the explicit testimony of every Islamic terrorist who has ever testified - we have to conclude that the scenario as you present it is highly unlikely to occur.

WHAT IS far more likely - and here you will see demonstrated the conservative ideal of giving others the benefit of the doubt - is that an Iraqi who suffered due to military actions taken against Al Qaeda or Baath who would seek to oppress or destroy him, would not reflexively run to join his oppressors and give his own life simply to take those of a few who may have been involved in the end product of the tragedy that befell him.

Or did you forget that the left are supposedly all about root causes and justifications?

And we've made enough mistakes in the middle east like a CIA supported overthrow of Irans elected leadership in 53, supporting Saddam in his war against Iraq...

And? Even if these acts can be demonstrated to be wrong, can you demonstrate that they were not necessary in order to prevent a GREATER EVIL? Did you ever even think through your OWN VIEWS that far? Or do you just take everything at face value, blame it on the people who are less likely to hurt you whether or not that's right or wrong, and then call it a day on creating your view of the world? You're really that shallow? Even under the most dire (and false) scenario the US invasion of Iraq cost up to a million Iraqi lives - and Iraqis now have democracy, self-rule a functioning economy and far greater peace, security and freedom than they could have ever dreamed of under Baath. Baath and their leader Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, are known to have DELIBERATELY slaughtered several times that amount of Iraqis, and their rule did not and never would have resulted in the freedom, peace and security that the Iraqis now enjoy.

Even applying THE WORST condemnation of US actions that your side has managed to manufacture - even judging the actions of the US and their allies including my country at the exact same level as you who hate us so - we are still IMMEASURABLY better than the force we went there to oppose.

Good point, fez. So how would you feel about pro-American terrorists killing liberals, Muslims, and other anti-Americans wholesale? That would be cool with you, right? I mean, terrorism is just a technique, and Americans have some valid points, so slaughtering some liberals to make those points is fully justified, right? I await your response with bated breath.

Btw, the phrase "root cause" comes from Marx.

I CANT HELP IT BUT THAT OBAMA SYMBOL BOTHERS ME ITS SATANIC FOR SURE