From the New York Times:
Two United States airmen on their way to Afghanistan were killed and two seriously injured on Wednesday when a gunman opened fire on an American military bus at the Frankfurt airport, according to American military officials in Europe and German police....
He was not named by the authorities, but The Associated Press reported that his uncle in Kosovo identified him as Arid Uka, and said he was born and raised in Germany after his parents moved there about 40 years ago. The uncle, Rexhep Uka, told the news agency that the family was Muslim and that Arid Uka worked at the Frankfurt Airport. That could not be immediately confirmed. ...The German magazine Der Spiegel reported on its Web site that the suspect was carrying a large amount of ammunition when arrested. The police said they could not confirm that report.
A man whose office is near the site of the shooting, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect his business, said witnesses told him that before opening fire the gunman shouted “God is great” in Arabic. Mr. Füllhardt, the police official, said he could not confirm such reports.
As you may recall, the U.S. military liberated Muslim Kosovo from its internationally recognized government in Christian Serbia back in 1999.
In other news, there are widespread calls in the U.S. media for the U.S. military to intervene in Libya. After all, the Grand Strategists reason, that would make Muslims love us.
Posts
40 comments:
This story is clearly BS. Germany has very strict gun control laws so no such shooting could possibly have happened.
-broodrack
I wonder how independent Serbia would have been if France and the UK alone had to face Germany, 1917-1918. (I.e., Germany wouldn't have lost, the Armistice would have been neutral, no Jugoslavija, Austria-Hungary would have controlled Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia would have been weak if it existed at all, and the settlement in Kosovo would have been completely and imponderably different.
NO MATTER WHAT WE DO INTERNATIONALLY WE WILL ALWAYS SUFFER FOR IT. No good OR BAD deed goes unpunished, if you are American.
Finish the border fence. Bring the boys back home. Sell Manhattan to the UN and kick all other international/ multinational orgs out of the country.
Non-isolationists are freaks. (Some of them are nice though.)
Selling Manhattan to the UN is actually an interesting idea, on a few different levels.
"Non-isolationists are freaks. (Some of them are nice though.)"
Yeah the 20's were fun
nothing bad happening there
It's Orwellian listening to NPR report on the story.
Their PC-cleansed version of the story leaves leaves out almost half of the fundamental 5 Ws of reportage: who, what, why, when and where. More shockingly, they purposely omit the two most important Ws: who did such a unusually violent act and why.
It's analogous to Stalin airbrushing official photos to remove the images of rivals he killed but more heavy-handed. At least Stalin replaced his rival's images with scenery to make the edit undetectable.
The omissions in these NPR stories are like leaving a black silhouette in place of the censored image. You are suppose to know some un-PC facts have been purposely censored.
Those two old hound dogs, McCain and Lieberman, are at it again, howling for military action of some sort, any sort, against Libya. Just like they've been baying for the blood and bombing of the flavor of the month enemy country for these past few decades. Can't teach a new trick to an old dog, I guess. People like this do us more harm than good, that is, if they ever did us any good whatsoever to begin with.
I don't know about you, but I am always worried about the inevitable (verbal and private) attacks on Muslims by non-Muslims, which always seem to occur after rare and isolated incidents like this.
I had a layover in Frankfurt for several hours last summer. It looked like the third world: dirty, crowded, and full of Arab types. It felt unsafe. Turns out it was.
"Selling Manhattan to the UN is actually an interesting idea, on a few different levels."
Hell no, it's still valuable property. Now, if you could arrange to sell most of the people living there....
Seriously, I recall a high school teacher saying we ought to pull out of the UN and my teenybopper mind thinking, "What an ass. If not for the UN, we'd all be at war." Yes, yes, I am a female. How'd you guess? God, I make myself sick thinking about my female mind sometimes.
I want out of the UN. Is there any American pol who as President would announce, "I want to pull out of the UN, and I want the UN to go elsewhere"?
I think it serves America right. What "right" did America have to attack Serbia in 1999? What did Serbia (all eight million of them) ever do to America? What vital American interest was at stake there? Answer - absolutely nothing! Did Congress declare war on Serbia? How would Americans like it if Serbian warplanes dropped bombs on the USA for 78 days like we did to them? How would Americans like it if Serbs knocked out every bridge over the Potomac like we knocked out all the bridges that cross the Danube? American planes blew up the Chinese embassy, killed many civilians on a passenger train and bombed indiscriminately. We had no business sticking our nose in there at all. It was actually illegal under international law. Not that Washington has ever cared about that. As for "Kosovo" it is little more then a corrupt mafia-state, full of narco and sex-slave trafficking. And that's the thanks you get America, for attacking one of the few peoples in Europe who were NOT anti-American and were loyal allies in two world wars. Well done! Now go work your similar magic in that great bastion of culture and civilization, Libya. Just don't complain America, when fifty or sixty years from now, China drops bombs on you for trying to put down a Hispanic separatist revolt in the southwest.....
Hillbillies ("mountain people") are never thankful when you do them a gigantic favor, unsolicited. It's like you're trying to lord your status over them, and that they're in your debt.
Look at how disdainful the Hatfield-McCoy belt is about going on the dole.
In contrast, look at how little the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians have done to us since we left Southeast Asia. Or Guatemalans, Salvadoreans, and Nicaraguans. Farmers just aren't obsessed with pride, honor, and revenge like herders are.
Plus farmers are an easier target, being sedentary and living in accessible lands, unlike mobile herders who live in inaccessible lands. So if we wanted to invade in the first place, or after they had tried to get revenge on us, it makes most sense to pick fights with farmers.
But that assumes too much of the war-mongering class to get.
I wonder how independent Serbia would have been if France and the UK alone had to face Germany, 1917-1918.
I am not sure about WWI but let's not forget one thing about WWII:
Only two countries in the whole Europe freed themselves from German occupation without direct involvement of the foreign troops: Russia/USSR and Serbia/Yugoslavia.
In contrast, look at how little the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians have done to us since we left Southeast Asia.
Part of the reason Americans are fairly popular in Indochina is because... we declared victory and pulled out in 1973, rather than staying there forever.
If the shooter has been in Germany for 40+ years it hardly seems logical to link his attack to the conflicts in Kosovo.
Sh*t happens...as a particulat paleoconservative i am not going to play the muslim bait game. What is the only cultural group besides dying nativist american(mainly white and protestant) that wants to repel globalism and the new world order?
Steve, you're brilliant at analyzing internal American issues, but when it comes to world affairs, you're completely clueless. Surprisingly so, for someone usually so intelligent and articulate.
Btw, Anonymous #2, are you Serbian-American? Just intrigued by your spelling...
Steve, you're brilliant at analyzing internal American issues, but when it comes to world affairs, you're completely clueless.
Please, do clue us in then.
Anonymous says Sailer is "completely clueless" when it it comes to "world affairs". I think anonymous needs to explain exactly where and in which way he is clueless by being specific. He should give us the benefit of his superior analysis of "world affairs" by submitting something we can all learn from. This name calling and taking potshots is really juvenile; a 12 year old can cruise blogs and call everyone else stupid. Debate your position and put it out there for everyone else to evaluate.
"What an ass. If not for the UN, we'd all be at war." Yes, yes, I am a female. How'd you guess? God, I make myself sick thinking about my female mind sometimes."
Welcome, Anony-miss.
'S okay. My theory is, it's not "female" that makes us gals think dumb stuff in our teens and twenties, it's "youth."
Problem with feminism is, it allows silly girls to never grow up.
Kosovars or Albanians were also involved in a botched attempt to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix. Dummies- they should have enlisted and waited to be kicked upstairs by our politically correct brass. I'm sure in only 5 years they could have been in command of their own nuclear submarine.
I want out of the UN. Is there any American pol who as President would announce, "I want to pull out of the UN, and I want the UN to go elsewhere"?
I've been reading the first volume of Churchill's war memoirs (Gathering Storm) and it is amazing how most of the same "nice white person" tendencies were around even then. In the 30's, of course, the darling of international humanitarian types was the League of Nations. What is interesting, though, is how much the British public in general had absorbed some of these sucker tendencies, to the extent that there was (mainly for domestic political reasons) a dual Foreign Secretary/Foreign Secretary to the League of Nations structure in place.
And just to prove that foreign policy idiocy is not an exclusively American condition, here is Churchill on the Abysinnia fiasco:
But the British nation from time to time gives way to waves of crusading sentiment. More than any other country in the world [not any more!], it is at rare intervals ready to fight for a cause or a theme, just because it is convinced in its heart and soul that it will not get any material advantage out of the conflict.
Steve, you're brilliant at analyzing internal American issues, but when it comes to world affairs, you're completely clueless. Surprisingly so, for someone usually so intelligent and articulate.
Hey, that's my line!!
What, precisely, is that Libyan mob (some of them carrying signs in articulate English slang) after, in a positive sense? Yes, they want Col. G. gone. And afterward?
Apparently they will all dance around the May pole ever after, and the reign of Virtue, Democracy, and "Western values" - which in that region invariably take the form of concrete Israeli interests - will be secured.
Pardon me if I cough politely.
The average IQ of the native Libyan, according to Lynn and Vanhanen, is 84. The political goals of the Libyan revolutionists, according to our State Department, are a blank. They have lived under one tyrant or another since time immemorial. Their current shouting and screaming will result, at best, in the hoisting of another Col. G., beholden to the usual international oil interests - that is to say, they will depose one tyrant and acquire a fresh one. And for this they will undergo a dreadful bath of blood. Their revolt thus has the unmistakeable appearance of the merest working-off of excess hormonal energy.
Should Americans die to scratch that itch? More to the point, does America have the funds to back Yet Another Crusade to preserve for some benighted people the "right" to "elect" another tyranny - which, in the present case, will surely be some rancid brand of sharia stupidity?
The point is moot. America doesn't have the cash. You can see this in the glum faces of both the preposterous beskirted Hillary and President B.O. In their apparent resistance to another wild leap into war, these two are not engaging in stubborn "libralism"; they simply know the score.
See here.
Wesley Whitey... said: "What is the only cultural group besides dying nativist american (mainly white and protestant) that wants to repel globalism and the new world order?"
If you think that answer to this question is Muslims, you are wrong. Muslims want to establish globalism and the new world order where Islam rules. If you think that answer is different, please elaborate.
Anonymous just after Wesley Whitey asked: "Btw, Anonymous #2, are you Serbian-American? Just intrigued by your spelling..."
No, I think Anon #2 is more likely a Croat-American, or a "Yugoslavian"; no self-respecting Serb I've ever met would have claimed something like that convoluted argument about France and UK facing Germany alone in WWI; I'm not even sure what that was supposed to prove.
The person who sounds like a pi$$ed-off Serb-American is second Anon after Φ ("I think it serves America right..." post). Switching from "we" to "you" is a telltale sign. I mostly agree with the guy, but he is too bitter for my taste. I prefer to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
@ Steve, you should really make people use unique IDs, even if it's just Anon#1, Anon#2, etc. This mapping business (third Anon to the left after that stop sign next to Whiskey's post) is becoming really inefficient.
"Yeah the 20's were fun
nothing bad happening there"
You think you're being ironic, but you're not.
Agreed on this Steve, it is a pity that both Khadaffi (Pan Am 103, German nightclub bombings that killed US Servicemen) and the Muslim population cannot both lose.
Steve however fails to note that the US and the world depends on two things:
1. Libyan oil on the market. Libya supplies ten percent of the world oil consumption, its oil is of the highest quality, lowest sulfur and highest carbon (gravity) making it the cheapest to refine.
If you like $4 a gallon gas now, imagine how bad it would be if Libyan oil goes off the world market in a semi-permanent condition (imagine Nigerian levels of sabotage and destruction) while encouraging places like Oman and the UAE and Saudi Arabia (the huge prize) to revolt and take THEIR oil offline.
If you like living your nice, comfortable, middle class life, well guess what? IT RUNS ON CHEAP OIL.
2. The US also has interests in not having say, most of Libya move to Italy (and other places in Europe) to make a "Camp of the Saints" reality. First, that would take important markets for US agricultural and machine exports into basically nothing, and second a sudden influx of Muslim mass immigration would at best create a Thirty Years War in Europe and at worst various caliphates with French, and British Nukes.
Of course, seeing Europe overwhelmed by mass Libyan/Tunisian/Egyptian immigration would only accelerate the Mexicanization process here. By pointing out the weakness of the West in enforcing borders even in times of economic distress.
Let me add, given the two points above, 1. Need to keep Libyan oil on the market and stop the wave of revolt in key US/Global Oil suppliers, and #2 avoiding mass Muslim immigration to Europe, the US has an interest:
GET A WINNER QUICKLY.
Since the US has objectives, namely cheap oil and no mass Muslim immigration into key markets/nuke owners Europe, it needs to pick a likely winner (Khadaffi, the rebels), and aid them as quickly as possible to stop the fighting as quickly as possible.
The longer it drags on, the worse the US position is. The more likely that oil infrastructure is damaged, and Libya's output goes dark for years if not decades (the worst would be defacto partition of the nation). The longer the fighting drags on, of course, the more likely mass immigration into Italy and then points northward happens.
Is it in the US interest to see basically a re-run of the Hun, Vandal, Visigoth, Frank, Saxon, Angle, and Jute invasions of the Roman Empire in the West?
"If you like $4 a gallon gas now, imagine how bad it would be if Libyan oil goes off the world market in a semi-permanent condition (imagine Nigerian levels of sabotage and destruction) while encouraging places like Oman and the UAE and Saudi Arabia (the huge prize) to revolt and take THEIR oil offline.
If you like living your nice, comfortable, middle class life, well guess what? IT RUNS ON CHEAP OIL."
Shrug. Suits me. My state has pleeeennnnty of coal just begging to be Fischer-Tropsched into gas and diesel. Building a plant here, as we speak.
We just never did it before because you innumerate ninnies thought spending trillions on aircraft carriers, to keep oil shipping lanes open in order to pay less at the pump, was a great deal.
But if the navy can't manage to do it, anyway, might as WELL go to American-made synfuels.
Expensive Middle-Eastern oil means American jobs and a smaller military burden on the US taxpayer? What's not to like?
Whiskey said
>imagine how bad it would be if Libyan oil goes off the world market [...] while encouraging places like Oman and the UAE and Saudi Arabia (the huge prize) to revolt and take THEIR oil offline<
Whiskey is drinking his namesake.
No one's oil will ever be taken off the world market, not even "in a semi-permanent condition" (whatever that means). Period.
The stuff is just sludge unless someone buys it.
If you think a united Islamic front can be maintained in the face of the profits (the only profits) to be had from the stuff, then hie your rear to an institution; you have become dissociated, as the good doctors call it.
Economics 101: Oil costs money to produce. Oil is s--t unless someone pays for it. Oil will be bought and sold until the last drop is squeezed from the last pebble of shale, or until an alternative energy source supplant it.
Human Nature 101: No united front of economic abstinence can be maintained. The minute one is declared is the same minute some would-be participant will break it to take advantage of the presumed abstinence of his fellows. There is no honor among thieves, true enough, and there is also no honor among human beings as such. Even assuming a given policy is actually honorable, most of which aren't.
Reply to dragonpnw;
No I am not a Serbian, or a Serbian-American. It is also easy to talk about "lighting a candle" when you are not a victim.
Reply to Whiskey.
Lybia is responsible for only 1% of the world's oil exports and America gets most of its foreign stock from Canada and Mexico.
The Kosovan government we imposed, not only do they demolish churchs and graveyards and do eveything they can to ethnically cleanse the last remaining vestiges of Christian civilization from Kosovo i.e doing all the kind of things we were supposedly attacking the Serbs for, they're also allegedly involved in murder and organ harvesting.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/4464942/Organ-harvesters-linked-to-Kosovo-PM
And the media and politicians who were so keen to fight balkan genocide are completely silent.
To the first Anon after David, who also seems to be the same as the second Anon after Φ:
OK, I stand corrected on your ethnicity. I just thought that "Just don't complain America, when fifty or sixty years from now, China drops bombs on you for trying to put down a Hispanic separatist revolt in the southwest..." was an odd thing for an ordinary American to say; perhaps you are not ordinary.
Re: Chinese dropping bombs on the USA, they will not so long as the USA has more nukes and so long as trillions of dollars of Chinese foreign reserves are invested in US Treasuries. You can take this to the bank.
Re: "It is also easy to talk about "lighting a candle" when you are not a victim." I completely disagree; it is essential to talk about lighting a candle especially when you are a victim, so that you can transition from being a victim to not being one. Otherwise you could wallow in your misery forever.
"Invade the world, invite the world"
Wow-- this simple description (along with the "in-hock-to-the-world" part) does a better job of describing US and British policy folly, no matter what the ruling party, than any overpaid media pundit these days. It also explains why the media's traditional liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican dichotomy fails to capture the true division of people in the Western world these days: the invade the world/invite the world crony-capitalist globalists (as you point out), and the vast majority of these countries' citizens who both want strict restrictions on immigration (especially by Muslims) and have little enthusiasm for Wilsonian military adventures that have been fouling up the world and bankrupting the US and UK since World War I.
I find it interesting how the media in the US and Britain stupidly refer to massive immigration as a "liberal" policy and invasion of countries like Serbia (of which Kosovo is a part) and Iraq as a "conservative" policy. It's the classic fool-the-public, reframe-the-question, divide-and-conquer tactic, to prevent the masses with a common interest from uniting around it, and instead fighting each over irrelevant side issues. So as a result, a neocon-driven worst of both worlds prevails in the USA and United Kingdom-- Gramscian massive immigration *and* financially ruinous imperial wars in the Balkans and Middle East.
While the USA's history as an "immigration country" perhaps makes the point much tougher to argue here (same for Australia and Canada I guess), it's patently foolish to argue that mass immigration from the 3rd World is in any way "liberal" or "progressive" in European or Asian countries that have never been nations of immigrants. In fact, mass immigration there is correctly seen by the masses of people in those countries (no matter what their party leanings on other issues) as a tool used by amoral predatory capitalists to decrease wages by the native working class, and to decrease the social cohesion that allows a society to support progressive taxation and a social safety net.
In other words, Europe (on the Continent at least) has an understanding that crosses pre-packaged US ideological lines-- that progressive economic policies (seen as "liberal" in the USA) require social solidarity and strict restrictions on immigration to require earned citizenship, controlled numbers of skilled immigrants and, wherever possible, first-preference immigration to overseas ethnic Diaspora (e.g. Italian-Americans going back to Italy or Baltic/West Slavic/Germanic-Americans going back to Germany/Netherlands/Scandinavia), considered very conservative in the USA. These natural ideological allies could never unite within the British, North American or Australia political spheres, whereas homeland-and-soil conservatives on the European continent (offended by the cultural affronts and loss of social cohesion from Muslim mass immigration) find common cause with economic liberal progressives (offended by corrupt big-business interests who want to break unions and reduce wages), who understand that an environmentally-responsible, socially progressive economic regime requires a conservative immigration policy.
The Kosovan government we imposed, not only do they demolish churchs and graveyards and do eveything they can to ethnically cleanse the last remaining vestiges of Christian civilization from Kosovo i.e doing all the kind of things we were supposedly attacking the Serbs for,
That's the only thing that gets to me about the whole affair (I couldn't care less about the dead weight of the mythical "serbian heartland"), that the albos turned around and did exactly the same thing to serbs while the very same moral crusaders who were formerly so eager to intervene stood silent.
The reality is the serbs lost the propaganda war years earlier. That media campaign was really something wasn't it? "Evil bosnian serbs," night after night after night after night for three years. By the time kosovo rolled around it was morally open and shut. I mean, come on, it's serbs [evil personified*]; what's there to think about?
*Not that this view is entirely wrong. Ask Dragan to translate "muslimani, muslamani, crni su vam dosli dani, nema Tita vas da brani."
To Silver:
Dude, who exactly appointed me to be a translation service here? If you post phrases in foreign languages not generally understood by the general public, you should provide the translation if you think it's pertinent to the discussion.
Kosovars = Albanians
BTW the policy tension above (between the broadly-supported aims of economic progressivism in Europe and the universally reviled divisions sown by cultural Leftism) probably explains why the traditional Continental European Left has collapsed into a state of permanent ruin these days-- they betrayed their own working-class economic principles to support the very different aims of cultural Marxism and Gramscianism, which are actually quite hostile to the working class. So poor, working and middle-class Europeans-- the traditional support base for Europe's Leftist parties-- have naturally deserted them.
Elections on the Continent are now essentially between the traditional Right and the homeland-and-soil right exemplified by e.g. Geert Wilders, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium and their counterparts in Finland, Greece, Denmark, Italy and even Sweden (where the party recently scored a breakthrough), with the most successful parties and candidates essentially being traditional Righters, who openly reject multiculturalism while supporting progressive economic policies, and introduce concrete restrictions to halt Muslim immigration and expel Muslim communities with high rates of crime, terrorism and economic blight. The European opponents of mass immigration also bitterly oppose foreign wars (like Iraq) for consistent ideological reasons-- they don't want mass Muslim immigration into their own countries, but they understand that this means respect for the sovereignty of Muslim countries and no Iraq-style imperialistic invasions there. This, again, has broad consensus that we could never find in North America.
Although I've been very sour on Europe before, I have to wonder if this alone will allow at least the European Continent to survive while the Anglo-American world collapses from foolish and unsustainable immigration, economic and military policies. Somehow, the core of Europe has mustered up a sense of nationalism (albeit a more pan-EU nationalism that invokes the historical memory of Europe-uniting Christendom against Arab and Turkish Muslim invaders). While such a nationalism is almost helpless in the face of the globalists and crony capitalists on both the "liberal" and "conservative" sides of the US political spectrum, who see a mutual benefit in mass immigration, lack of social cohesion, costly military interventions and the loss of a common national binding that those all cause.
I am not sure about WWI but let's not forget one thing about WWII:
Only two countries in the whole Europe freed themselves from German occupation without direct involvement of the foreign troops:
That's the point. Had America not upset the balance of power in Europe in WWI, WWI would have ended in a stalemate and there would have been no crushing Treaty of Versailles, and thus no Nazi Germany and no WWII.
The words "Muslim" and "gratitude" do not belong in the same sentence.
Only two countries in the whole Europe freed themselves from German occupation without direct involvement of the foreign troops: Russia/USSR and Serbia/Yugoslavia.
Russia needed a mad Georgian warlord in order to do that.
Post a Comment