If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Germany is for Terrorist Lovers.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
My little ad to help tourism in Germany...after a Morroccan received 15 years for helping Al Qaida murder over 3,000 Americans on 911.
Visual:
Two Middleeastern men sitting in front of a big old red heart.
headline:
Germany is for terrorist lovers!
copy:
Whether you want to launder the money, get weapons from Iraq or meet those Virgins Allah has waiting for you... don't go to America where you could receive the death penalty if you get caught. Come to Germany. Even if you get caught, the most you can get is 15 years.
Germany
Smuggle up to us!
Anyone wanna debate if light sentences will attract more of Al Qaida to Europe?
Visual:
Two Middleeastern men sitting in front of a big old red heart.
headline:
Germany is for terrorist lovers!
copy:
Whether you want to launder the money, get weapons from Iraq or meet those Virgins Allah has waiting for you... don't go to America where you could receive the death penalty if you get caught. Come to Germany. Even if you get caught, the most you can get is 15 years.
Germany
Smuggle up to us!
Anyone wanna debate if light sentences will attract more of Al Qaida to Europe?
0
Comments
I am sure the reason for the sentence is because of conditions placed on the court by German law, although I am not completely familar with the case that you are refering to, so correct me if I am wrong.
Again, PNJ the US government has not had a blot-free record on dealing with terrorists. A number of known IRA terrorists were allowed into the US and to disappear, never being tried for their terrorist crimes before a British court, where the attrocities were carried out. Those that were extradited found that the process took years because of American courts dragging their heals in repsonse to dealing with known terrorists.
No country is perfect. The Germans are not cowards but are using their democratic right to abstain from war. As I said before, the German government is following the will of its people, who are against the war and we all know the historical reasons behind this. Tony Blair has decided to discount the opposition here in Britain and good luck to him.
Indeed good luck to the US and the UK in ridding the Iraqi menace but allow other countries to exercise their democratic right to abstain and oppose.
So it's time for the cowards to stand for something. 15 years for that crime was an insult.
but the discussion I was hoping to have here involved liberal laws and light sentences being attractive to terrorists. After 911 many countries tightened their laws regarding immigration and terrorism. Germany, apparently, didn't.
No country has the right to get in the way of America protecting its people. Get that straight. And Germany and France are doing it to preserve their little money-making deals with Iraq that robbed the Iraqi sick and children or medical care.
Germany does not make millions from the US behind stationed on its soil. The US soilders are based in Hessen, Bayern and parts of Baden Würtemberg as a legacy from the American occupation zone that was formed after the end of the second world war. After the establishment of the Bundesrepublik there became less and less need for the American soilders to be on German soil and they are here today because of agreements with the German government. For the same reasons, British troops still have bases in Nord-rhein Westfalen and Niedersachsen.
But please do not delude yourself that the German economy is in anyway dependent upon the American troops being stationed on German soil. Have you been to Germany? I have lived there, studied their history and language and so perhaps am better placed to understand their reasons for being anti-war. I also realise that despite slight economic hic-cups at the moment, they have made remarkable strides in bringing the former East up to the same standard of living as the West, although there is still far to go.
Similarly, lets look again at this terrorist recieving 15 years. The German Grundgesetz (basic law) has been recognised as being one of the fairest laws in Western society, a lot more so than the U.S in some cases. German courts are obliged to give sentences relating for the crime for which the accussed is being tried for. If it was for the 9/11 bombings then I am sure German courts would have acted accordingly. I ask this - if the American government is unsatisfied with the outcome, why are they not initiating extradition proceedings??
PNJ, I enjoy your posts. I do not post often to this forum but sometimes I find you really are posting with a blinkered view on what is going on outside of your own area.
I appreciate that Americans feel betrayed that Germany does not wish to enter this war, but that is their right. respect it.
I do believe that this terrorist should be dealt with accordingly. But you can only act within the boundaries set out by law.
Be more objective in your outlook.
Or maybe you think you can buy people's loyalties with money and are shocked and hurt that the Germans are not selling theirs. In a way I can't blame you for that thinking. It has worked for America elsewhere.
Like I said, it takes balls to stand up to the bullish, armed-to-the-teeth, threatening Bush administration. The Germans and the French are proving to be the bravest nations on earth. The only cowards here are those who use their military might to intimidate and impose their will throughout the world, and those who engage in arse-licking to the Master in hope of a reward.
Oh, nobody is telling America they cannot defend themselves. When has anyone said you cannot use force to defend your territory?
pssst! Iraq is not part of the United States. Iraq is another country thousands of miles away. I thought I'd let you know.
Two examples of countries I admire are Spain and France. Also, one of the ones France was rude to, Hungary has been allowing troops to train in its country for the war in Iraq.
Careful PNJ. No country has said that we can't protect our nation.
Dependent? No. Not as a country. Local economies? Yes. Make money from those troops? Oh, yes. Significant amounts, and yes, millions of dollars. The United States pays out millions in "training damage" costs alone.
The US troops are not a legacy of post-war occupation. They are a legacy of the cold war and the United States having "forward deployed" units as part of their NATO commitment in order to react to the possibility of attack from the Warsaw Pact. There are units in Italy as well, same reason.
Germany is no longer the edge of the defense pact, so it makes sense to move forward deployed troops closer to the edge. That would be Poland today. That move will cost Germany millions of dollars. And save the United States significant funds as well (costs are significantly lower in Poland than in Germany).
I wish that were the easy answer - unfortunately I dont think there is a deterrent to terrorism except for eliminating terrorists and their associates. They deal in death and seem only to understand death.
'the BBC report' what bbc report do you mean....I think I must have read it in several other places.....and what time are you talking about..
Sorry mate...the US have not just funded the IRA they have consistantly sold weapons to countries they tehn wage war apon, as have the UK.
Please keep in mind it was the good ol' USA which outfitted the KLA, one of the most massive terrorist organizations in Europe and amongst the most notorious drug runners in the world to kill and terrorize the Serbs and Macedonians. It was also America which trained and funded the Mujahadeen which terrorizes India to this very day. During the 1980s, the Reagan Administration also funded the Contras whose massive terrorism really requires little explanation.
Yeah, horrible, wasn't it? Actually fought the Sandanista's military and forced Daniel Ortega to hold free elections. Terrorism, huh?
Sources?
Unfortunately as you once said, not all evidence is conveniently posted on the net and our own Congress reviewed and deliberated on sworn affidavits of Contra atrocities in the 80's in fact, is you may recall. Their conclusion was to order a cessation of all funding for the contras and any operation intended to overthrow the Sadnaista regime which the Reagan administration, as we all know, duly and criminally ignored.
For overall references to CIA support for "terrorist" groups (once called insurgents in another era) here is plenty to begin with...
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/usgenocide/CrbnCnSthAmrc.html#Nicaragua
But more to the point, an excellent address given (surprisingly enough) by a former military officer and CIA operative on Nicaragua and the Contras...
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/stock1.html
(presuming of course that you can avoid the classic attack that any evidence must be nothing more than "conspiracy theory").
I will be interested to hear your rebuttal on what is well known in political circles as the facts of contra activities. Soldiers were not their primary victims whether you wish to admit it or not.
One interesting find on the fact that known complicitors to the Iran Contra affair have been restored to positions of power by this Bush administration only fuels my own indictment of the criminality inherent to this administration and its own hidden agenda and policy of systematic deceit perpetrated upon the American public...
http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html
It wasn't the CIA that trained the Contras in Honduras. It was American military personnel. And I can state for a fact that they were not taught to commit atrocities, or to attack civilians. They were taught to wage classic guerilla warfare. And they were successful at it.
I've never said the CIA didn't commit atrocities. But the CIA is a rather small organization in terms of people on the ground, and post Jimmy Carter has had almost no operational capability (until part way through Clinton's administration, who interestingly enough, is the President to rebuild the CIA's operational capability). Nor is it realistic to say that the CIA commited atrocities as a matter of policy, especially during a period when they had no resources to do so.
The other source is a joke. Read what they have to say about the invasion of Grenada and tell me again that this is a valid source (or would you prefer a step by step breakdown of the events of 1983 that led to the requests to the US for assistance and our giving it?).
Given that the Contras were comprised of ex Samoza death squad members it isnt too hard to see that they like many Latin American insurgencies which given US admins have backed, have regularly committed acts which have now come to be known as "terrorism" whereas once we were lead by our own leaders to believe they were valiant freedom fighters. That much is clear.
Not in the 1980s, Clandestine. The military had absolutely no faith in the CIA after the experiences of Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia (such as the Phoenix Project), and the CIA had its operational capabilities cut to nothing in the late 70s.
Let's say the Contras were heavily ex-Somoza people (they weren't, but lets just say they were)? Why would they need a comic book to tell them how to do these things?
Or what if the Contras were heavily disaffected Sandanistas (a more accurate picture)? Why would they need a comic book to tell them how? After all, they'd already been indoctinated with the examples of Che Guevera and Castro.
What do you call distribution of a comic book? Freedom of the Press? Sure isn't training.
The biggest problem that those who actually provided training to the Contras had was getting them to put aside the indoctrination they had received before the Sandanistas came to power (regardless of where that was from). I will not claim we were 100% successful in doing that (we weren't), but it wasn't from a lack of trying.