I'll leave it to others who are familiar with my posts to determine whether it is my habit to address whatever issue is under discussion, or instead to rely on attacks and labels. People who attempt to weave conspiracy theories around the Waco incident - or who insult American political leaders, the American political system, or American culture with scurrilous and base accusations - deserve to be offended. Get over it. Harold Pinter has been called much worse by many other people. If you'd like to start a Harold Pinter or Arundhati Roy or leading-political-bloviators thread, then we can go into their public statements on Iraq and other matters in detail. No, this is my way of saying that your attacks have no credibility. I look forward, though not very eagerly, to your next exercise in taking remarks of mine out of context and attempting to demonstrate with them that I do not argue on the basis of fact and logic. What question would that be? I denied being an extremist. I denied relying on ad hominem or other cheap tactics in debate. I may get in a dig now and then - so what? - but I'm not ashamed of my own dig-vs.-analysis ratio. Get ready for what you may choose to consider an ad hominem attack - if you can't stand someone telling you exactly what he thinks, then I suggest you go somewhere else. Got it? I now consider you duly warned: Your position is moronic. Okay, that was the topic sentence. If you've recovered, you can now take offense and, with a few points and clicks, drag the words out of context in order to attempt to demonstrate that I merely attack people using generalizations, rather than backing them up with analysis. Okay, now here's the analysis - which, if you follow one of your favorite tactics, you may choose to ignore: In a political context, the label "extremist" applies to the Timothy McVeighs of the world, the Nazis and Identity radicals on the right, perhaps by the Spartacists and other cultlike revolutionaryies on the left. Sharing a position and a perspective that also happens to be shared by a very substantial number of Americans - the majority according to the most recent opinion polls - cannot justify the use of the term "extremist." It is shoddy language and reflects shoddy thinking. Or maybe, coming from a hypocrite such as yourself, it merely represents your usual self-serving dishonesty. If attempting to support such a position - that whatever Bush Administration misstatements on the war do not seriously affect the core case for it, as made and accepted - makes one an extremist, then what do you want to call the McVeighs? I guess you don't want to call 'em nutjobs - as that might hurt their feelings (though McVeigh at least is immune). I await your suggestions, though I don't promise to follow them. I guess they can sue me for the emotional harm. Hypocrites such as yourself, as well as individuals who make irresponsible charges against public figures or who push lies and distortions on behalf of paranoid conclusions about public policies, while directly or implicitly directing horrendous insults and harsh accusations against all those who disagree with them, deserve to be ridiculed. Ridicule serves a social good in such cases. Behave with consistency, intellectual honesty, and basic civility, and you won't have to worry about me disturbing your tender sensibilities.
So you enjoy quoting a Nazi General but do not read when MSFE quotes the Guardian? Some democratic thinking! On your question : Yes, I can imagine a cop in NYC directing the traffic for invading troups and another one sending out speeding tickets to the drivers of the fleeing tanks! Has anybody on ET any good example of US troups ever fighting without WMD?
no, nyc cops have much better things to do: http://www.nydailynews.com/06-04-2003/news/story/89463p-81426c.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,758724,00.html I never said don't read his posts at all...you said that...and the reason i read about menlike Rommell is to understand the minds of the evil....but in this link I provided it is interesting to me that so many of the French are Pro Palestinian and anti Semitic...what's even better is the fact that they supported the events of 9-11....man Europe is so jealous at being a 2nd fiddle has been inthis world.
Actually, I don't believe Rommel was ever a member of the Nazi party. He also participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler. A great general on the wrong side in a bad war. WTF are you talking about? Maybe if you give an example of troops fighting WITH WMD, we'll know what definition of WMDs you're using. Do you consider machine guns to be WMDs? Defoliants? Incendiary bombs? I suppose you could count Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course, though there were precious few troops involved in the actual operation. There were some military guys who got in a fight recently at a bar not too far from where I live. No WMDs were discovered. Hans Blix wasn't around, so the conclusion wasn't verified, but I hope that example will do anyway.
Quote from KymarFye: Actually, I don't believe Rommel was ever a member of the Nazi party. He also participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler. rubbish Rommel und der Widerstand Die Rolle Rommels im Widerstand wird vielfach falsch und verzerrt dargestellt - bei kritischer Betrachtung der Quellenlage müssen auch hier einige Korrekturen angebracht werden. Rommel war allen Anschein nach vom Attentat auf Hitler nicht informiert, geschweige denn, daà er es gebilligt hätte. Keinesfalls war er sich bewuÃt, welche Rolle ihm bei diesem Putsch zugedacht war. Die Vorwürfe, die ihm in Zusammenhang mit dem 20.Juli 1944 gemacht wurden und die ihn zum Freitod trieben, beruhten auf zu einem groÃen Teil auf Falschaussagen verhafteter Verschwörer, die ihre eigene Haut retten wollten. Tatsache ist, daà Rommel - nachdem er in Frankreich den Eindruck gewonnen hatte, daà Deutschland den Zweifrontenkrieg zwangsläufig verlieren muÃte -, Hitler im Frühsommer 1944 vergeblich für einen Waffenstillstand mit den Alliierten gewinnen wollte. Gemeinsam mit GFM Kluge hatte er Hitler unter Vermeidung des Begriffes Kapitulation gebeten, die "Folgerungen aus der Lage unverzüglich zu ziehen". Das Scheitern dieses Versuchs vermochte jedoch Rommels Treue zu Hitler nicht zu untergraben, vielmehr beklagte er, daà Hitler ihm nicht vertraue. Als der Feldmarschall vom Attentat auf Hitler erfuhr, schrieb er an seine Frau: "...hat mich das Attentat auf den Führer besonders stark erschüttert. Man kann Gott danken, daà es so gut abgegangen ist."(23) Mit dem Attentat wurde Rommel durch zwei Offiziere in Verbindung gebracht, ohne daà er es auch nur ahnte. Einer war Generalleutnant Speidel, sein Stabschef. Rommel und Speidel stimmten darin überein, daà es Zeit für politische Konsequenzen zur Beendigung des Krieges sei. Was sie damit meinten, unterschied sich jedoch grundlegend: - Speidel glaubte, daà die Westalliierten niemals einen Frieden mit Hitler schlieÃen würden. Unter den Konsequenzen verstand er daher Hitlers Beseitigung, ohne dies jemals in Rommels Gegenwart auszusprechen. - Der politisch naive Rommel setzte dagegen weiterhin auf das "politische Geschick des Führer" und war davon überzeugt, daà dieser die notwendigen Schritte für einen Separatfrieden im Westen einleiten würde. Der andere war Oberstleutnant von Hofacker aus der Verschwörerzentrale beim Oberbefehlshaber West, wo man sich Anfang Juli 1944 immer noch nicht sicher war, ob mit Rommel gerechnet werden konnte oder nicht. Hofacker sollte bei Rommel in dieser Richtung sondieren, man wurde sich darüber einig, daà eine politische Lösung rasch herbeigeführt werden müsse, um den militärischen Zusammenbruch zu verhindern. Daà dafür zuvor Hitler beseitigt werden sollte - der Tag des Attentats stand bereits fest - erwähnte auch Hofacker mit keinem Wort. Weder Hofacker noch Speidel hatten also Rommel definitiv für den Widerstand gewonnen. Nach seiner Festnahme bezichtigte Hofacker den General Speidel als engen Mitarbeiter Rommels der Mitwisserschaft am Attentat. Speidel behauptete dann, er habe zwar von Hofacker den Termin des Attentats erfahren, dieses aber pflichtgemäà an seinen Vorgesetzten Rommel weitergemeldet. Damit hatte Speidel die Verantwortung für die unterlassene Weitermeldung an Rommel abgeschoben. Ob Speidels Aussage glaubwürdig sei, darüber sollte der Ehrenhof des Heeres entscheiden, in diesem Gremium saÃen mit den Generälen Guderian und Keitel langjährige Rivalen und Kritiker Rommels. Sie schenkten der Aussage Speidels Glauben, womit die Schuld auf Rommel fiel.(24) Rommel selbst ging nach seinen letzten ÃuÃerungen davon aus, daà man ihm die Niederlage ihm Westen anlastete und er deshalb zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden sollte. Der Vorwurf einer Verbindung zum Widerstand scheint ihm nie ganz klar geworden zu sein. Der weitere Ablauf ist bekannt. Die Tragik, daà ein eigentlich vollkommen Unschuldiger zum Selbstmord gezwungen wurde, ist unverkennbar. http://www.panzerlexikon.de/bio/rommel/rommel.htm#anders
Who cares about Rommel's affiliation now?> he's dead....I want to know how MSFE and ROE feel about the growing Nazi and Pro Palestinian movement in France...and if they applaud the attacks of 9-11 as the guardian mentioned BTW...If that last part about Rommel is true Im going to be pissed that you wrecked the ending of the book for me
Well, as ever, the truth is somewhat more complicated than a simple yes or no. It is generally accepted that he met with the plotters and knew of their plans, and favored bringing Hitler down, but at least initially objected to an attempted assassination. In short, he clearly "participated," offered some backing to the plotters, and, perhaps as important, didn't betray them. Whether he later offered more active support is a matter of some dispute. Here's one take. I have no doubt that you can find historians who will disagree with it. http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/Rommel-Plan.htm What seems rather clear is that Rommel conspired against Hitler, and had some knowledge of plans to move against him.
Keep to the law, Blair tells Bush Nicholas Watt, political correspondent Thursday July 10, 2003 Tony Blair gave George Bush a strong warning yesterday that he must follow proper legal procedures in the military trial of two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay who face the prospect of a death sentence. As 163 MPs signed a motion calling for the men to be repatriated, the prime minister made his unease clear when he demanded that the US should observe the "proper canons of law". "I quite agree that any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be one conducted in accordance with proper canons of law so that a fair trial is both taking place and seen to take place," he said as he faced intense questions in the Commons. The prime minister issued his rare rebuke to Mr Bush in response to the president's formal ruling last week that Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi should face a military trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, and Mr Begg, 35, from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, have been held for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer. MPs of all parties are horrified by the ruling because military officers will serve as prosecution, judge and jury. Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the two men faced a trial by a "kangaroo court presided over by the Pentagon". Mr Blair insisted that he was putting pressure on the US authorities to ensure that any charges against the two men should be proved "with proper rules of evidence". "We... are making active representations to them," he said. His remarks were made after a number of demands that he should to step up the pressure on Washington. David Winnick, the Labour MP for Walsall North, said: "Put your foot down, prime minister."