This is MoreHonestThanLife's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following MoreHonestThanLife's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
MoreHonestThanLife
Recent Activity
Sorry I mismatched some of the names in my previous response. But it seems like I'm not the only one (Carl Spackler thought my Baa'th party statement was from Helian, which must have pissed the latter) I'd like to suggest a clearer page layout so everybody can see that the author name comes _after_ the statement? OK, back to topic. @ Carl, 5:37 PM: I'm by no way insisting that Baath is (or was in the last decades) a political party in the western sense, or that it was democratic. But you know, there are one-party dictatorship systems in the world (and there have been, like in Nazi Germany) This kind of party is still called a party. My point is that it was not an islamistic party and that it saw islamists as opponents, which they were in fact. As for Saddam's language and style, I guess neither you nor me speak enough Arabic or are close enough to the Iraqi society to deduct anything serious from it, let alone political constellations. @ James, 5:15 PM: Yes, what about pre-9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq? Do I really have to rehash the old story of 80's America supporting Taliban and Saddam with huge amounts of money, and special military know-how? And no, I haven't seen Moore's Fahrenheit movie yet. Maybe I should just for the fun of it, cause your descriptions sound interesting. @ Oh Eric, 2:18 PM: No, I'm not the "only one linking that with 9/11". Read 2 year old postings on Pro-American.com and similar... no, actually, just read the last paragraph of "our friend DL"'s _lead_ posting in this thread. "Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember 2,800 people being murdered in New York City and Washington DC prior to Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanmo."
Helian, I guess it depends on who's defining "elite" after all. And who's defining "support for Israel". And then what I was talking about is criticizing other's support for Israel, as I was referring to DS who far up at the main entry of this thread, used exactly this point to add tne reproach of antisemitism or at least anti-Israel arguing, which DS unfortunately couldn't anyhow construct from priest Mueller's speech. What I was *not* talking about is every single guy stating at all times "Whatever the current policy in Israel is, we believe they are completely right and we won't offer a single piece of advice." It's called freedom of speech. And if you start to define pensioned priests that occur occasionally on TV as "elite", well, then be it. Btw, it also ends up defining "political correctness". In Germany, support for Israel is part of PC (and I'm completely fine with that). (More, I somehow cannot imagine that "Death to Israel" outbreaks are considered PC in America.) Scott H, indeed depends on defining "big fish". Looks like most, if not all of this list are "big fish" around Saddam and the Baa'th party. But then, linking those guys to 9/11 is a popular myth, which even GWB now denies to have ever openly stated. The Baa'th party is a secular party, very repressive for sure, but this repression included any islamistic outgrowths as well as legitimate democracy movements James W, *obviously* far more civilians, most of which probably Arabs, but quite some Afghani too, have been killed as a collateral damage of the so-called war on terror, that is, to be exact, after 2001-9-11. But I'm not saying this to outweigh the 9/11 victims, just saying that having your relatives killed does not help in improving your image of the US. As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I would call him a next to big fish at most. Read this for a start: http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper620.html and http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/essay_pf.jsp?article=essayksmcapture. But be it. So great. America managed to get hold of a single "big fish".
Well, it makes no sense that Muslims boycott a whole country for what a Danish newspaper published. It is illogical because the government and the dairy companies, and what not, have nothing to do with the newspaper. But then your pro-Danish campaign is exactly as misleading and illogical. Oh right, it wasn't your campaign. You just joined in. So what? Are you independent-minded or not?
And I really don't know what kind of German elite you are referring to criticizes support for Israel. This is, in its truest meaning, politically incorrect.
"Correct me if I'm wrong" OK. First, ARD is not funded by taxpayers. As a media critic, you should know at least that. Second, you only pay church taxes if you are a member of that church. Otherwise, zero. Note from David: Wrong. Non church members pay church taxes if they are employed in small jobs ("400 Euro jobs"), where taxes are deducted automatically. Also, for certain types of pensions ("Altersteilzeit"), church taxes are collected from non-church members as well. Finally, the German state pays the "wages" of Bishops, etc., as a result of a centuries-old contract. It's financed from the general tax funds. Glad I could help you out. Third, he didn't say that "everything bad" is the West's fault, but that the West has its own share on its bad image among Arabs. As for the crusades, I remember GWB having mentioned them occasionally... Correct me if I'm wrong, but Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have not brought a single big fish... Okay, Saddam, but what has this guy to do with 9/11?? Besides, don't start with body count. Obviously far more Arab people have been killed afterwards.
Thank you for making Thomas Leif's point, by ripping his words out of context, and by using covers of Der Spiegel, the magazine that has happened to interview him, instead of presenting evidence from SWR, the public radio/television station where he works, and by adding some snippy comments to show that you are personally offended. Btw, the covers you presented are visually impressive, of course, but given the typical image of Germans in the U.S. it seems to me pretty even. No stereotypes on American magazine covers? Still, covers are not articles. So I really don't get your point. Of course, it's much less of a hassle to sample some cover images than to analyze articles or even finding some of Mr. Leif's own work But that's exactly what Thomas Leif's argument is really about: that many bloggers do not follow journalistic rules, and therefore cannot replace the press. Be it that they choose to be subjective and not even trying to show the other side, be it that they do not have time for an in-depth research. You wouldn't even have needed to perform an in-depth research to notice that the Netzwerk Recherche (research network) he is a member of also criticizes "regular" journalists for not doing enough research before writing on a topic. Again, thank you for supporting his point with what you write on him. Btw, I wouldn't call your blog politically incorrect, just "incorrect" will do.