QuoteThe Keep Terrorists Out of America Act
It's a great name for a bill, and it will make great fodder for 2010 campaign ads -- who wants to be the guy who voted against keeping terrorists out of America? The bill was announced at a press conference this morning with the ranking members of each House committee present. It would require the President to get the consent of both the governor and state legislature before moving terrorists now being held at Gitmo to any U.S. state.
Here's a clip of Rep. Pete Hoekstra at the presser this morning explaining to a particularly thick reporter why the threat posed by al Qaeda detainees is different, and far more serious, that that posed by German prisoners of war. As Hoekstra explains, the Germans didn't kill three thousand American civilians as they went to work. In fact, one is struck by the degree to which German POWs were considered harmless. They were allowed to work among civilians, helping with all kinds of manual labor. Does anyone imagine that al Qaeda detainees will be allowed to do road work?
Posted by Michael Goldfarb
So the difference between Al-Queda and the Nazis is that....Al Queda kills civilians? Seriously? This quote is taken without a grain of salt by a
Jewish writer?
Link. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/the_keep_terrorists_out_of_ame.asp)
I don't really understand why Islamic Terrorist types are so fantastically different from Bundists or German Spies, either.
Shamelessly stolen from Yglesias.
I think this leads to a larger point; some people in this country appear to have blown up the threat posed by Islamic Terrorism into an existential threat, which, as long as they don't have nuclear or serious biological/chemical weapons, it won't be. They'll never be comparable to the Nazis
Germans are hot. Islamic terrorists are not.
Comparing the threat posed by the Nazi regime to the threat posed by terrorism, then turning around and transferring that analysis to the threat posed by German POWs to the threat posed by terrorist prisoners is a bat farcical, isn't it?
Could it be (follow me here) that while the Nazi regime was vastly more deadly than terrorism, particular German POWs were not at all dangerous, while particular Al Qaueda prisoners are extremely dangerous?
It is a lot to wrap your brain around, I know, but maybe sleep on it a little bit, let it percolate.
maybe a whale ate his brain
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 01:41:54 PM
Could it be (follow me here) that while the Nazi regime was vastly more deadly than terrorism, particular German POWs were not at all dangerous, while particular Al Qaueda prisoners are extremely dangerous?
It is a lot to wrap your brain around, I know, but maybe sleep on it a little bit, let it percolate.
:o
What I don't get is America put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII, but do not do the same to Muslims now. The difference is... Seriously? I think this leads to a larger point.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
What I don't get is America put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII, but do not do the same to Muslims now. The difference is... Seriously? I think this leads to a larger point.
???
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
What I don't get is America put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII, but do not do the same to Muslims now. The difference is... Seriously? I think this leads to a larger point.
It's this rule of law thing they have in America. Look it up.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
What I don't get is America put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII, but do not do the same to Muslims now. The difference is... Seriously? I think this leads to a larger point.
Generally people aren't ok with that anymore. Besides, from a practical standpoint, it's impossible to tell who is a muslim. With a Japanese, it's easy, but muslims come from all ethnic groups.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 09, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
I don't really understand why Islamic Terrorist types are so fantastically different from Bundists or German Spies, either.
Shamelessly stolen from Yglesias.
I think this leads to a larger point; some people in this country appear to have blown up the threat posed by Islamic Terrorism into an existential threat, which, as long as they don't have nuclear or serious biological/chemical weapons, it won't be. They'll never be comparable to the Nazis
You don't see how Islamic terrorists are different from Bundists? :huh:
There may well be some people in this country who have blown up the threat posed by Islamic terrorism into an existential threat, but this story has nothing to do with that. It's a congressman grandstanding on the closure of Gitmo.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2009, 01:41:54 PM
Could it be (follow me here) that while the Nazi regime was vastly more deadly than terrorism, particular German POWs were not at all dangerous, while particular Al Qaueda prisoners are extremely dangerous?
Particular, as in spies with English language skills who could infiltrate most levels of American society?
I'd say that, say, a German spy getting his hands on information sensitive to the Manhattan Project would have been terrible. Worse than almost anything Qaueda could pull off.
I'm loose. :)
Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2009, 07:45:39 PM
I'm loose. :)
Something we learned 6 years ago :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2009, 07:55:36 PM
Something we learned 6 years ago :rolleyes:
:o
You impugn my honor, dear sir.
Sex and The City sucks.
Quote from: Phillip V on May 09, 2009, 02:05:06 PM
What I don't get is America put the Japanese into internment camps during WWII, but do not do the same to Muslims now. The difference is... Seriously? I think this leads to a larger point.
I smell weakness in the air.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 09, 2009, 01:20:27 PM
So the difference between Al-Queda and the Nazis is that....Al Queda kills civilians?
AMERICAN civilians. The number of American civilians killed by the German military was probably rather low.
Quote from: Queequeg on May 09, 2009, 07:42:27 PM
Particular, as in spies with English language skills who could infiltrate most levels of American society?
I thought you were talking about POWs, not spies?
Americans are very sensitive when their civilians get hurt. See: U-Boat warfare in WW1. :(
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2009, 09:55:23 AM
Americans are very sensitive when their civilians get hurt. See: U-Boat warfare in WW1. :(
Those civilians had it coming. Anybody who sails to Europe on a ship full of weapons, during a war where submarines are sinking everything they see, deserves a Darwin Award.
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2009, 09:55:23 AM
Americans are very sensitive when their civilians get hurt. See: U-Boat warfare in WW1. :(
Those civilians had it coming. Anybody who sails to Europe on a ship full of weapons, during a war where submarines are sinking everything they see, deserves a Darwin Award.
I suppose we should ignore all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships.
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 02:50:30 PM
I suppose we should ignore all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships.
During WWI?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 03:00:28 PM
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 02:50:30 PM
I suppose we should ignore all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships.
During WWI?
Yes, you can look up the antics of U-151 and similar subs during WWI. I'll find you the dates of the lighthouse/light ship incidents because I cannot remember them offhand. The lighthouse was a platform on stilts on top of a shoal. I think it just got destroyed via deck guns. The light ships replaced it, and so became a target.
EDIT: Diamond Shoals was first lightship sunk by Germans in 1918. So, maybe the lighthouse and other lightship was WWII.
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 03:10:49 PM
Yes, you can look up the antics of U-151
Wasn't even activated until after the USA was in the war. :lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on May 10, 2009, 03:20:53 PM
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 03:10:49 PM
Yes, you can look up the antics of U-151
Wasn't even activated until after the USA was in the war. :lol:
Really? You got to be kidding?!? How odd that the Germans wouldn't start attacking US shipping off the US coast until after they became involved in the war. I am glad you pointed that out to us all.
I am not sure why though?
You may wish to re-read what I posted, though I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse because you have been exposed in your error. My statement is that the ship you referred to (U-151) wasn't put on active duty until after the USA was at war, not that the Germans only started attacking the US coastline until after the declaration.
I would say I am not sure why you'd deliberately misinterpret what I posted, but know very well why you did.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 10, 2009, 03:47:42 PM
You may wish to re-read what I posted, though I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse because you have been exposed in your error. My statement is that the ship you referred to (U-151) wasn't put on active duty until after the USA was at war, not that the Germans only started attacking the US coastline until after the declaration.
I would say I am not sure why you'd deliberately misinterpret what I posted, but know very well why you did.
Your statement was that U151 went on active duty after the US was in the war. That's either completely unrelated to what Strix posted or you assumed (incorrectly) that Strix was pointing out other examples of Uboats attacking the US before the declaration of war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 03:51:55 PM
Your statement was that U151 went on active duty after the US was in the war. That's either completely unrelated to what Strix posted or you assumed (incorrectly) that Strix was pointing out other examples of Uboats attacking the US before the declaration of war.
What do you believe his statement towards Neil about "ignor[ing] all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships." is referencing, then?
Quote from: Habbaku on May 10, 2009, 03:55:06 PM
What do you believe his statement towards Neil about "ignor[ing] all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships." is referencing, then?
Syt: Americans get pissed when civilians are killed.
Neil: The passengers on the Lusitania were retards.
Strix: The Krauts sank other civilian ships besides the Lusitania.
Your interpretation has him stating the obvious, in other words. I don't think that was his point at all.
I think it was his point. After all, Neil made it seem like Americans deserved it.
If they were traveling on ships transporting munitions across the Atlantic, they may not have "deserved" it, but the end-result is not something that should surprise anyone.
If they owned a ship chillin' in a harbor...
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 02:50:30 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 10, 2009, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2009, 09:55:23 AM
Americans are very sensitive when their civilians get hurt. See: U-Boat warfare in WW1. :(
Those civilians had it coming. Anybody who sails to Europe on a ship full of weapons, during a war where submarines are sinking everything they see, deserves a Darwin Award.
I suppose we should ignore all the civilian ships sunk off the coasts of North Carolina and New Jersey. Hell, the Germans sank a lighthouse and some light ships.
Good. They had it coming for starting a war with Germany.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2009, 04:04:33 PM
I think it was his point. After all, Neil made it seem like Americans deserved it.
Well, they took passage on an auxillary warship which the Germans pointed out to them (in newspaper ads, by name) would be sunk. Not sure you could successfully argue that they deserved death for this kind of stupidity, but it certainly introduces the idea that the decision-makers responsible for taking innocents aboard the ship are not free of some onus for their deaths.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 03:51:55 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 10, 2009, 03:47:42 PM
You may wish to re-read what I posted, though I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse because you have been exposed in your error. My statement is that the ship you referred to (U-151) wasn't put on active duty until after the USA was at war, not that the Germans only started attacking the US coastline until after the declaration.
I would say I am not sure why you'd deliberately misinterpret what I posted, but know very well why you did.
Your statement was that U151 went on active duty after the US was in the war. That's either completely unrelated to what Strix posted or you assumed (incorrectly) that Strix was pointing out other examples of Uboats attacking the US before the declaration of war.
To be fair, what Strix posted was unrelated to Neil's reference to the
Luisitania. The US got upset enough over those civilian deaths that the balance was tipped towards going to war, and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 was the proximate cause for the declaration itself.
What was the US going to do over the exploits of
U-151? Double-declare war?
Double secret probation
Quote from: grumbler on May 10, 2009, 04:24:31 PM
To be fair, what Strix posted was unrelated to Neil's reference to the Luisitania. The US got upset enough over those civilian deaths that the balance was tipped towards going to war, and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 was the proximate cause for the declaration itself.
What was the US going to do over the exploits of U-151? Double-declare war?
Agreed. Strix was working more on the theme of those damn dirty Krauts were really bad people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2009, 04:27:48 PM
Agreed. Strix was working more on the theme of those damn dirty Krauts were really bad people.
In groups, yes, they were (in that they seemed willing to do a lot of pretty questionable things if they were ordered to do so for "Garmany's benefit"). Once removed from their military units, they seemed to be okay - they couldn't do much to benefit Germany, and certainly killing random people wouldn't help their cause. I am not sure I would argue the same for AQ types, who don't always work in groups and follow a chain of command anyway, and who feel that they can fulfill their mission just by killing random people.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 10, 2009, 03:47:42 PM
You may wish to re-read what I posted, though I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse because you have been exposed in your error. My statement is that the ship you referred to (U-151) wasn't put on active duty until after the USA was at war, not that the Germans only started attacking the US coastline until after the declaration.
I would say I am not sure why you'd deliberately misinterpret what I posted, but know very well why you did.
I made no error. It would seem to be that you misunderstood what I posted instead.
The discussion concerned the Germans killing US citizens. I just pointed out that the Germans killed more than just those placing themselves in harm's way by crossing the Atlantic.
Quote from: Strix on May 10, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
The discussion concerned the Germans killing US citizens. I just pointed out that the Germans killed more than just those placing themselves in harm's way by crossing the Atlantic.
Indeed. Those citizens placed themselves in harm's way by making war against Germany.