Just who the hell is the German foreign minister?

HolyWarrior · February 13, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

A THUG PROTESTS

By MICHAEL KELLY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 12, 2003 -- "Excuse me. I am not convinced."- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, lecturing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Munich last week, after Rumsfeld's argument for war against Iraq.

MR. Rumsfeld may have convinced the leaders of 18 European nations, but not you, Mr. Fischer. It's personal: The question of failing to convince must be seen in the context of who we have failed to convince. Sometimes "who" explains "why."

Mr. Fischer, who are you?

You are the foreign minister of Germany. You have been that since 1998, when Germany's left-wing Greens Party, of which you are a leader, won enough in the polls to force the Social Democratic Party into the so-called Red-Greens coalition government.

But for the formative years of your political life, you were no man in a blue government suit. You were a man in a black motorcycle helmet. That is what you were wearing that day in April 1973 when you were photographed, to quote the New Left historian Paul Berman, "as a young bully in a street battle in Frankfurt."

The photos showed you, Mr. Fischer, inflicting a "gruesome beating" on a policeman named Rainer Marx: "Fischer and other people on the attack, the white-helmeted cop going into a crouch; Fischer's black-gloved fist raised as if to punch the crouching cop on the back; Fischer's comrades crowding around; the cop huddled on the ground, Fischer and his comrades appearing to kick him."

As Berman reported, Mr. Fischer, you rose in public life as an important figure in the anti-American, anti-liberal, neo-Marxist, revolution-minded German radical left of the generation of 1968. This was the left that produced and supported the Baader-Meinhof Gang (or Red Army Faction), which, as Berman wrote, "refrained from nothing," including "kidnappings, bank holdups, murders."

You were not a terrorist yourself, but you were a good and active friend to terrorists, weren't you, Mr. Fischer?

In 2001, the German government put on trial your old friend Hans-Joachim Klein, who had been an underground "soldier" in the Revolutionary Cells, an ally of the Red Army Faction and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The Revolutionary Cells helped in the murder of the Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich in 1972, and Klein himself took part in a 1975 joint assassination operation with Carlos the Jackal in which three were killed.

In 1969, you attended the meeting of the Palestinian Liberation Organization in which the PLO resolved that its ultimate aim was the extinction of Israel - that is to say, the extinction or expulsion of the Jews of Israel. In 1976, Revolutionary Cells terrorists led by your Frankfurt colleague, Wilfried Boese, hijacked an Air France plane to Entebbe. The hijackers intended to murder all the Jewish passengers on that flight, but were killed by Israeli commandos.

So, that's who you are, Mr. Fischer, the man we haven't convinced. You are the man for whom Munich wasn't enough, the man who needed Entebbe to convince him that Jew-murder was wrong. You ask to be excused. You have been excused.

Full article at New York Post

oedo · February 13, 2003, 19:51

where´s the problem?

edit: LOL, I just checked from what paper you got the news from:

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 19:58

~~I see the conservative press, which has no valid arguments, just tries to raise even more hate towards Europeans by flinging mud.~~
Edit : scrap that, I've just seen the NYPost was even crappier than I thought. It is perfectly normal for this piece of mud to fling such a material.

I would be ashamed if I was you HolyWarrior, for quoting such a crap as an informative source.

Main_Brain · February 13, 2003, 19:59

hes trying to say Germans are Terrorists :P

Boris Godunov · February 13, 2003, 20:05

Every NYer, at least, knows the Post is the equivalent of London's Sun. What a crap paper.

Funny how they didn't do such an in-depth background check on GW Bush when they were endorsing him for President!

Adam Smith · February 13, 2003, 20:31

This column also appeared in The Washington Post, which bears no physical or political resemblance to the New York Post. Kelly is editor of TheAtlantic, (IIRC formerly known as Atlantic Monthly), which has a liberal reputation. Note, for example, the articles describing the hazards of illegal abortions, supporting affirmative action, and asking "Can the Liberals Rally" from their current situation.

Now, can we address the substance of the article?

Hueij · February 13, 2003, 20:35

The German Foreign Minister is Herr Fisher (sp?). That answers the question?

oedo · February 13, 2003, 20:37

ok, then one for all time: this way too long article contains exactly four true facts:

1) Fischer is the german foreign secretary.
2) Fischer is a member of the green party - a democratic party btw.
3) Fischer is and has been no terrorist
4) Fischer is not convinced

the rest is bullshit, propaganda, found out by the british secret service or whatever....

HolyWarrior · February 13, 2003, 20:39

That's a typical leftist for you, Adam Smith. They attack the source instead of deal with the argument. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Hueij · February 13, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

And you can?

Main_Brain · February 13, 2003, 20:47

I say the Article comes several years too late and further Web research should wield Fischer's Answers for the interested...

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 20:50

Fisher, like many German left-winged politicians, has been in touch with the far left in his youth.
A part of the far left was terroristic.
Therefore, Fisher was and remains a terrorist ! It's as simple as that.

This journalist dresses gross generalization over the fact that Fisher was far left during his youth (about 30 years ago), which was a very common occurence : it was the 70's remember ?
Then, the journalist dresses a portrayal of a given part of the German far left (the Red Army Fraction) which was unsignificant in terms of membership, but which was infamous because of its efficiency spreading terror.
The journalist then appeals to the emotions of the reader, by equalizing Fischer and terrorists. He uses unprovable assertions (like Hans-Joachim Klein being the friend of Fischer) to achieve this.

You may say "the journalist does explicitely say Fischer wasn't a terrorist himself !", which is true. However, this sentence is unsignificant in the column, which adresses itself to the emotions of the reader, a domain where it is essential to have a blurred, woherent message. The emotional reader will just overlook the disclaimer.

In short : a complete, absolute, and utter piece of ****. You Yanks would be scandlized if such a column was written here on Bush or Rumsfeld, and you would be right.

I'm sad people actually defend this text, as it is pure brainless mud-flinging in order to raise hate toward Europeans.

Spiffor · February 13, 2003, 20:52

BTW, I do n ot attack the argument, because the argument is completely moot.

Basically, you attack a German politician to have been member of the far left 30 years ago.
Do you think we can argue on such a minor thing ?

Hueij · February 13, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

Therefore, Fisher was and remains a terrorist ! It's as simple as that.

Well, I'm 48 now, with extreme left-wing ideals thirty years ago. So I guess I'm a terrorist too...

Main_Brain · February 13, 2003, 20:55

Those who are 20 and no Communists have no heart...
;=)

oedo · February 13, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Fisher, like many German left-winged politicians, has been in touch with the far left in his youth.
A part of the far left was terroristic.
Therefore, Fisher was and remains a terrorist ! It's as simple as that.

This journalist dresses gross generalization over the fact that Fisher was far left during his youth (about 30 years ago), which was a very common occurence : it was the 70's remember ?
Then, the journalist dresses a portrayal of a given part of the German far left (the Red Army Fraction) which was unsignificant in terms of membership, but which was infamous because of its efficiency spreading terror.
The journalist then appeals to the emotions of the reader, by equalizing Fischer and terrorists. He uses unprovable assertions (like Hans-Joachim Klein being the friend of Fischer) to achieve this.

You may say "the journalist does explicitely say Fischer wasn't a terrorist himself !", which is true. However, this sentence is unsignificant in the column, which adresses itself to the emotions of the reader, a domain where it is essential to have a blurred, woherent message. The emotional reader will just overlook the disclaimer.

In short : a complete, absolute, and utter piece of ****. You Yanks would be scandlized if such a column was written here on Bush or Rumsfeld, and you would be right.

I'm sad people actually defend this text, as it is pure brainless mud-flinging in order to raise hate toward Europeans.

thx Spiffor. I couldn´t have done better.
btw. Fischer is still a close friend of Madeleine Albright. they still meet on various occasions.
I´d like to know what the Israel posters think about him. as far as I know he has a good reputation in Isreal.

Sikander · February 14, 2003, 07:26

So what about the photos where he is shown beating (kicking actually while his 'opponent' is on the ground) a policeman? IIRC he admitted that he was indeed the fellow in the black helmet. Was all of this faked?

And being Albright's friend doesn't do much for one's intellectual reputation.

Oerdin · February 14, 2003, 07:43

I saw Rumsfield and Fisch giving their speechs on CNN. I don't like Rumsfield but I thought he was much more proffesional then Fischer especially the way Fischer talked down to that Portugese diplomat who raised some very good questions about the German government's policies.

uh Clem · February 14, 2003, 07:44

Fischer should have been a drunken cokehead . He'd be considered respectable today.

TheStinger · February 14, 2003, 07:45

Quote:

Originally posted by uh Clem
Fischer should have been a drunken cokehead . He'd be considered respectable today.

TheStinger · February 14, 2003, 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
I saw Rumsfield and Fisch giving their speechs on CNN. I don't like Rumsfield but I thought he was much more proffesional then Fischer especially the way Fischer talked down to that Portugese diplomat who raised some very good questions about the German government's policies.

Thats because Fischer is far left and anybody who disagrees with him is a bougeios recationary and should probably be shot

Dauphin · February 14, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
That's a typical leftist for you, Adam Smith. They attack the source instead of deal with the argument. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Does that make the NY post a leftist paper. They are attacking the source of the statement (i.e Fischer) instead of arguing the merits of military action.

oedo · February 14, 2003, 08:10

I will look for the photo, as soon as I am at home this evening. then we can discuss about what it will show. I am at work right now and won´t find the time for this.
that while we can agree, that respectable persons generally shouldn´t throw stones on other people. facts later.

at least Fischer doesn´t lie to the UN security council and present faked "evidences" in order to justify a war and killing thousands of innocent civilians.(sorry, I couldn´t help binging this polemic but much more proven fact at this point.)

Daz · February 14, 2003, 08:13

Hmm, it seems to me the US government is starting to get paranoid. It sees enemies everywhere. A similar thing happened after WW2 broke out towards the japanese americans. Then it was suposed communists. Now its the arabs and apparently Germany, France and Belgium. This is not at all surprising to me.

USA just doesnt realize that there are countries in the world which cannot allow themselves to go wielding a big stick around, breaking a thing or two in the process. Others have to and want to be somewhat more carefull in making enemies in the world and passing judgements on other countries.

Sikander · February 14, 2003, 08:30

Here's a link to a site that has the photos, although they are too tiny to make out clearly. Interesting anyway:

http://www.faz.com/IN/INtemplates/eFAZ/archive.asp?doc={6F9B4A4B-E3D2-11D4-B99E-009027BA226C}&width=1600&height=1200&agt=explorer&ver=4&svr=4

Daz · February 14, 2003, 08:51

That picture I posted was intended to illustrate that Americans tend to be ignorant to the rest of the world. Right now there is this "youre either with us, or against us" idea put into circulation by GWBush.

Its just not that simple my friends.... If you dont understand that, please just accept it as a fact.

Richelieu · February 14, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyWarrior
That's a typical leftist for you, Adam Smith. They attack the source instead of deal with the argument. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.

You're talking about the article attacking the Foreign minister instead of his message, right ?

Sikander · February 14, 2003, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
That picture I posted was intended to illustrate that Americans tend to be ignorant to the rest of the world. Right now there is this "youre either with us, or against us" idea put into circulation by GWBush.

Its just not that simple my friends.... If you dont understand that, please just accept it as a fact.

Please, I'm tired of people taking that statement out of context in Europe. It was meant for such stalwart allies as Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc., ie people who could be expected to pay lip service to the war on terror while not lifting a finger to do anything about it if they could get away with it. It was meant as a warning to states that harbored terrorists that if they didn't become part of the solution to the problem, that their sovereignty was going to be violated as we hunted down the terrorists in their territory. It was a remarkably successful statement amongst its target audience. But so many Europeans are keen to assume that we felt it necessary to threaten them into aiding us. We aren't nearly as stupid as you assume.

Did you check out that site I linked to? Any comments?

BeBro · February 14, 2003, 09:28

Let me congratulate to the most stupid article that was posted recently here

Harovan · February 14, 2003, 09:29

Hilarious article. And I thought "Bild" was a crap paper, but, ya know, in the States is everything a lot larger. I pity people, who read such bull and yet more those, who take it serious.