2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps.
- But not one of them died in gas chambers
- But not one of them died in gas chambers
Uploaded on 21 Jan 2009
Please sign the petition of support: http://petitions.tigweb.org/FSSPX
His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps.
- But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues.
"- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism."
For a follow up, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZRINE... and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9BCWW... ("More info ....").
The Crucifixion of Bishop Williamson
http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/20
" - As I observe the vilification of Bishop Williamson occurring in the Catholic blogosphere, I cant help but recall the gospel account of the crucifixion of Christ Himself. For with the exception of the Blessed Mother and St. John, the rest of His apostles had abandoned Him, quaking in their boots for fear of the Jews (John 19:38)."
I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com...
The John Paul II Theology of Pope Benedict XVI
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com...
'Holocaust bishop' told to recant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/786...
For a German translation of the interview: http://globalfire.tv/nj/09de/religion... .An English transcript at http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion...
More about Williamson at http://blog.balder.org/?p=600, at http://jackmyers.daylife.com/topic/Ri... and at http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/gledhil...
Bishop Richard Williamson's own blog "Dinoscopus" at http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/
" - Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems."
Bishop [Richard] Willamson's Letters 1991 - 2003 at http://sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Willi...
The Society of St. Pius X has forbidden Bishop Williamson from speaking on any historical and political matters: " - Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions."
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archi...
Priest in Italy defends Holocaust-denier: "- In Thursday's interview, Abrahamowicz defended the bishop, saying Williamson had not denied the Holocaust but had only questioned the "technical aspect" of the gas chambers." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...
Der Spiegel, no. 4/2009, page 3: - An actual event that occurred near Regensburg (Germany) at a sanctification of deacons in November 2008 at All Saints Day, could damage the already tense relation between Catholics and Jews even more.
Monsignore Williamson, who was commissioned by Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of The St. Pius X brotherhood, to persue with the founders lifework, came to Zeitzkofen where The St. Piux X Church conducts a seminary in a baroque palace.
At All Saint's Day the Swedish convert, Sten Sandmark, was to be consecrated as a new deacon at the seminary. It was because Sandmark's conversion from the Protestant Church to The St. Pius X Church had caused a scandal in Sweden. Therefore the Stockholm based TV journalist Ali Fegan was present to capture the event for Swedish Television. After the consecration, Fegan interviewed Monsignore Williamson and others in the palaces chapel.
In the course of the interview the subject of Nazi crimes came up. The footage shows how Williamson paused for a moment and then said that he does not believe that six million Jews were gassed in gas chambers. On the sudden counter question: "So, there weren't any gas chambers?", the bishop replied: "I believe, gas chambers never existed, yes."
In this matter, he said, he sides with the "revisionists" who believe that "two to three hundred thousand Jews in Nazi concentration camps died. But not one of them had been killed by gas in a gas chambers."
Then the clergyman talked much about technical impossibilities, the heights of Chimneys and improper doors because they were untight, but that they were still shown today to "the tourists" at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
"If this is not anti-Semitism", the Swedish interviewer dug deeper, "what is it?" Bishop Williamson: "Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism."
His view is that about 2-300 000 Jews may have perished in the Nazi working camps.
- But not one of them died in gas chambers, Richard Williamson argues.
"- Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism."
For a follow up, look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZRINE... and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9BCWW... ("More info ....").
The Crucifixion of Bishop Williamson
http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/20
" - As I observe the vilification of Bishop Williamson occurring in the Catholic blogosphere, I cant help but recall the gospel account of the crucifixion of Christ Himself. For with the exception of the Blessed Mother and St. John, the rest of His apostles had abandoned Him, quaking in their boots for fear of the Jews (John 19:38)."
I believe in freedom of speech for Bishop Williamson
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com...
The John Paul II Theology of Pope Benedict XVI
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com...
'Holocaust bishop' told to recant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/786...
For a German translation of the interview: http://globalfire.tv/nj/09de/religion... .An English transcript at http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion...
More about Williamson at http://blog.balder.org/?p=600, at http://jackmyers.daylife.com/topic/Ri... and at http://www.tellingfilms.co.uk/gledhil...
Bishop Richard Williamson's own blog "Dinoscopus" at http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/
" - Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems."
Bishop [Richard] Willamson's Letters 1991 - 2003 at http://sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Willi...
The Society of St. Pius X has forbidden Bishop Williamson from speaking on any historical and political matters: " - Therefore I prohibit Bishop Williamson until further notice from speaking in public on political or historic questions."
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archi...
Priest in Italy defends Holocaust-denier: "- In Thursday's interview, Abrahamowicz defended the bishop, saying Williamson had not denied the Holocaust but had only questioned the "technical aspect" of the gas chambers." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...
Der Spiegel, no. 4/2009, page 3: - An actual event that occurred near Regensburg (Germany) at a sanctification of deacons in November 2008 at All Saints Day, could damage the already tense relation between Catholics and Jews even more.
Monsignore Williamson, who was commissioned by Arch Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of The St. Pius X brotherhood, to persue with the founders lifework, came to Zeitzkofen where The St. Piux X Church conducts a seminary in a baroque palace.
At All Saint's Day the Swedish convert, Sten Sandmark, was to be consecrated as a new deacon at the seminary. It was because Sandmark's conversion from the Protestant Church to The St. Pius X Church had caused a scandal in Sweden. Therefore the Stockholm based TV journalist Ali Fegan was present to capture the event for Swedish Television. After the consecration, Fegan interviewed Monsignore Williamson and others in the palaces chapel.
In the course of the interview the subject of Nazi crimes came up. The footage shows how Williamson paused for a moment and then said that he does not believe that six million Jews were gassed in gas chambers. On the sudden counter question: "So, there weren't any gas chambers?", the bishop replied: "I believe, gas chambers never existed, yes."
In this matter, he said, he sides with the "revisionists" who believe that "two to three hundred thousand Jews in Nazi concentration camps died. But not one of them had been killed by gas in a gas chambers."
Then the clergyman talked much about technical impossibilities, the heights of Chimneys and improper doors because they were untight, but that they were still shown today to "the tourists" at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
"If this is not anti-Semitism", the Swedish interviewer dug deeper, "what is it?" Bishop Williamson: "Anti-Semitism can only be bad if it is against the truth. But if something is true, it cant be bad. I am not interested in the word anti-Semitism."
Not just Heidegger, history repeating.....
Regarding
the text which I've put as underlined / bold, substitute the word 'Jew'
with 'Muslim' and it becomes strikingly similar to the contemporary
presence we have in Europe!
Published on Foreign Affairs (http://m.foreignaffairs.com)
What Heidegger Was Hiding
Heidegger und der Mythos der jüdischen Weltverschwörung
(Heidegger and the Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy).
BY PETER TRAWNY. Klostermann, 2014, 124 pp. €15.80.
The
German philosopher Martin Heidegger died in 1976, yet scholars are
still plowing through his life’s work today -- some of it for the very
first time. Indeed, few modern thinkers have been as productive: once
published in their entirety, his complete works will comprise over 100
volumes. Fewer still have rivaled his reach: Heidegger deeply influenced
some of the twentieth century’s most important philosophers, among them
Leo Strauss, Jean-Paul Sartre, Hannah Arendt, and Jacques Derrida. And
although Heidegger’s work is most firmly entrenched in the Western
tradition, his readership is global, with serious followings in Latin
America, China, Japan, and even Iran.
But
Heidegger’s legacy also bears a dark stain, one that his influence has
never quite managed to wash out. Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in the
spring of 1933, ran the University of Freiburg on behalf of the regime,
and gave impassioned speeches in support of Adolf Hitler at key moments,
including during the plebiscites in the fall of 1933, which solidified
popular support for Nazi policies.
Nevertheless,
Heidegger managed to emerge from World War II with his reputation
mostly intact. The Allies’ denazification program, which aimed to rid
German society of Nazi ideology, targeted regime supporters just like
him. Freiburg came under French control, and the new authorities there
forced Heidegger into retirement and forbade him from teaching. But in
1950, the now-independent university revoked the ban. This resulted in
large part from Heidegger’s outreach campaign to French intellectuals
with anti-Nazi credentials, including Sartre and the resistance fighter
Jean Beaufret. In short order, Heidegger won over a wide following in
France. Once his international reputation was secure, the university
gave him emeritus status and allowed him to resume teaching.
To
his new champions, Heidegger portrayed himself as the typical unworldly
philosopher, claiming that he had joined the Nazi Party and accepted
Freiburg’s rectorate primarily to defend higher education from the worst
excesses of the regime. He insisted that he had quickly realized his
mistake, which led him to resign as rector less than a year into his
term and start including veiled critiques of the Nazis in his subsequent
lectures and writings.
Among
European and American intellectuals friendly to Heidegger, this
exculpatory narrative quickly became the conventional wisdom. If the
philosopher had betrayed a touch of anti-Semitism, the logic went, it
was only of the kind that had been ubiquitous in Germany (and most of
Europe) before the war: a conservative, cultural reflex that was nothing
like Hitler’s viciously ideological racism. Moreover, Heidegger had
many Jewish students, one of whom, Arendt, was also his lover. After the
war and long after their passions had waned, Arendt resumed contact
with Heidegger and helped get his work translated into English. Would an
inveterate opponent of the Nazis really have assisted an unrepentant
anti-Semite? Not everyone was convinced of Heidegger’s innocence, but
his defenders worked hard to protect the philosophical work from its
author’s scandal. And until recently, the strategy largely worked.
The
official story began to wear thin in the 1980s, however, when two
scholars, Hugo Ott and Victor Farías, using newly uncovered documents,
each challenged Heidegger’s claim that his brush with Nazism had been a
form of reluctant accommodation. More recently, in 2005, the French
philosopher Emmanuel Faye drew on newly discovered seminar transcripts
from the Nazi period to argue that Heidegger’s thinking was inherently
fascist even before Hitler’s rise to power. Faye accused the French
Heideggerians of having orchestrated a cover-up of Heidegger’s political
extremism and advocated banishing Heidegger’s work from the field of
philosophy; no one, Faye said, should associate the greatest barbarism
of the twentieth century with the West’s most exalted tradition of
reason and enlightenment. In response, Heidegger’s defenders labeled
Faye’s textual interpretations tendentious and resorted to a variation
on Heidegger’s old argument: that he had quickly grasped his error and
realized that Nazism was nothing more than hubristic nihilism. Still, it
was hard to explain away the depth of commitment that Faye had
uncovered.
Now,
Peter Trawny, the director of the Martin Heidegger Institute at the
University of Wuppertal, in Germany, has waded into this long-running
controversy with a short but incisive new book, recently published in
German. Trawny’s meticulous and sober work introduces an entirely new
set of sources: a collection of black notebooks in which Heidegger
regularly jotted down his thoughts, a practice he began in the early
1930s and continued into the 1970s. Trawny, who is also the editor of
the published notebooks, calls them “fully developed philosophical
writings.” That’s a bit strong for a collection of notes, but Heidegger
clearly intended them to serve as the capstone to his published works,
and they contain his unexpurgated reflections on this key period.
Shortly before his death, Heidegger wrote up a schedule stipulating that
the notebooks be published only after all his other writings were. That
condition having been met, Trawny has so far released three volumes
(totaling roughly 1,200 pages), with five more planned.
Trawny’s
new book caused a sensation among Heidegger scholars even before it
appeared in print, in large part because several inflammatory passages
quoted from the notebooks, previously unpublished and containing clearly
anti-Semitic content, were leaked from the page proofs. But with the
book now released, Trawny’s novel line of analysis is creating its own
stir. Drawing on the new material, Trawny makes two related arguments:
first, that Heidegger’s anti-Semitism was deeply entwined with his
philosophical ideas and, second, that it was distinct from that of the
Nazis. Trawny deals with the notebooks that Heidegger composed in
1931–41, which include the years after he resigned as rector of the
University of Freiburg, in 1934. As the notebooks make clear, Heidegger
was far from an unthinking Nazi sympathizer. Rather, he was deeply
committed to his own philosophical form of anti-Semitism -- one he felt
the Nazis failed to live up to.
BEING MARTIN HEIDEGGER
It is hard to exaggerate just how ambitious Heidegger was in publishing his breakout work, Being and Time, in 1927. In that
book, he sought nothing less than a redefinition of what it meant to be
human, which amounted to declaring war on the entire philosophical
tradition that preceded him. Western thought, Heidegger argued, had
taken a wrong turn beginning with Plato, who had located the meaning of
being in the timeless, unchanging realm of ideas. In Plato’s view, the
world as humans knew it was like a cave; its human inhabitants could
perceive only the shadows of true ideals that lay beyond. Plato was thus
responsible for liberalism in the broadest sense: the notion that
transcendent, eternal norms gave meaning to the mutable realm of human
affairs. Today, modern liberals call those rules universal values,
natural laws, or human rights.
But
for Heidegger, there was no transcendence and no Platonic God -- no
escape, in effect, from the cave. Meaning lay not in serving abstract
ideals but in confronting one’s place within the cave itself: in how
individuals and peoples inhabited their finite existence through time.
Heidegger’s conception of human being required belonging to a specific,
shared historical context or national identity. Platonic universalism
undermined such collective forms of contingent, historical identity. In
the eyes of a transcendent God or natural law, all people -- whether
Germans, Russians, or Jews -- were essentially the same. As Heidegger
put it in a 1933 lecture at Freiburg: “If one interprets [Plato’s] ideas
as representations and thoughts that contain a value, a norm, a law, a
rule, such that ideas then become conceived of as norms, then the one
subject to these norms is the human being -- not the historical human
being, but rather the human being in general.” It was against this
rootless, “general” conception of humanity, Heidegger told his students,
that “we must struggle.”
By
“we,” Heidegger meant Germany under Hitler’s National Socialist regime,
which he hoped would play a central role in such an effort. Heidegger
followed in a long line of German intellectuals, going as far back as
the eighteenth century, who believed that the country was destined to
play a transformative role in human history -- a kind of modern
rejoinder to the creative glory of ancient Greece. For Heidegger, this
meant replacing the old, Platonic order with one grounded in his vision
of historical being. In the early 1930s, he came to see Hitler’s
National Socialist movement, with its emphasis on German identity, as
the best chance of bringing about such a revolutionary change. And in
the Jews, he saw a shared enemy.
FOLLOWING PROTOCOL
As Trawny’s title suggests, both
Hitler’s and Heidegger’s view of the Jews grew out of a particular form
of German anti-Semitism that was rampant after World War I. This strain
of thinking, which saw Jews as part of a monolithic, transnational
conspiracy, was crystallized in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a
forged document that first appeared in Russia in 1903 and made its
way to Germany in 1920. Originally published by Russian monarchists to
scapegoat the Jews for the tsar’s military defeats and the subsequent
upheaval, the protocols purported to be minutes from a series of
meetings held by Jewish leaders bent on world domination. According
to the alleged transcript, the plotters sought to manipulate
international finance, culture, and media; promote extreme ideas and
radical political movements; and foment war to destabilize existing
powers. Hitler devoured the tract, which he swiftly employed as Nazi
propaganda. It hit a nerve in Germany, still traumatized by World War I,
beset by economic chaos, and subject to extreme political instability
-- all of which could now be attributed to the Jews.
Trawny
does not argue that Heidegger read the protocols or agreed with all
their contentions. Rather, he suggests that like so many other Germans,
Heidegger accepted their basic premise, which Hitler hammered home in
his speeches and in Nazi propaganda. As evidence, Trawny cites the
German philosopher and Heidegger colleague Karl Jaspers, who recalled in
his memoir a conversation he had with Heidegger in 1933. When Jaspers
brought up “the vicious nonsense about the Elders of Zion,” Heidegger
reportedly expressed his genuine concern: “But there is a dangerous
international alliance of the Jews,” he replied.
Yet
Hitler and Heidegger embraced anti-Semitic conspiracy theories for
different reasons. Whereas the former argued that the Jews posed a
racial threat (a fear for which the protocols offered evidence), the
latter saw them as a philosophical one. The Jews, as uprooted nomads
serving a transcendent God -- albeit sometimes through their secular
activities -- embodied the very tradition that Heidegger wanted to
overturn. Moreover, as Trawny points out, Heidegger found race deeply
problematic. He did not dismiss the concept altogether; if understood as
a biological feature of a particular people, race might well inform
that people’s historical trajectory. But he rejected using race as the
primary determinant of identity. For Heidegger, racism was itself a
function of misguided metaphysical thinking, because it presumed a
biological, rather than historical, interpretation of what it meant to
be human. By “fastening” people into “equally divided arrangement,” he
wrote in the notebooks, racism went “hand in hand with a self-alienation
of peoples -- the loss of history.” Instead of obsessing over racial
distinctions, Germans needed to confront their identity as an ongoing
philosophical question. Heidegger overtly criticized the Nazis for their
fixation on biological identity, but he also lambasted the Jews for the
same sin. “The Jews,” he wrote in the notebooks, “have already been
‘living’ for the longest time according to the principle of race.”
Heidegger’s
anti-Semitism differed from that of the typical Nazi in other important
ways. To many of Hitler’s supporters, for example, the protocols
reinforced the view that the Jews were essentially un-German, incapable
of properly integrating with Germany’s way of life or even understanding
its spirit. But Heidegger took this notion further, arguing that the
Jews belonged truly nowhere.
“For a Slavic people, the nature of our German space would definitely
be revealed differently from the way it is revealed to us,” Heidegger
told his students in a 1934 seminar. “To Semitic nomads, it will perhaps
never be revealed at all.” Moreover, Heidegger said, history had shown
that “nomads have also often left wastelands behind them where they
found fruitful and cultivated land.” By this logic, the Jews were
rootless; lacking a proper home, all they had was allegiance to one
another.
Another
anxiety reflected in the protocols and in Hitler’s propaganda concerned
the perceived power of this stateless, conspiratorial Jewry -- be it in
banking, finance, or academia. But for Heidegger, the success of
Europe’s Jews was a symptom of a broader philosophical problem. Playing
on the tired cliché of Jews as clever with abstractions and calculation,
the notebooks make a more general critique of modern society: “The
temporary increase in the power of Jewry has its basis in the fact that
the metaphysics of the West, especially in its modern development,
served as the hub for the spread of an otherwise empty rationality and
calculative skill, which in this way lodged itself in the 'spirit.'”
In
forgetting what it meant to be finite and historical, in other words,
the West had become obsessed with mastering and controlling beings -- a
tendency Heidegger called “machination,” or the will to dominate nature
in all its forms, ranging from raw materials to human beings themselves.
And with their “calculative skill,” the Jews had thrived in this
distorted “spirit” of the modern age.
At
the same time, the Jews were not, in Heidegger’s view, merely passive
beneficiaries of Western society’s “empty rationality” and liberal
ideology; they were active proponents of them. “The role of world
Jewry,” Heidegger wrote in the notebooks, was a “metaphysical question
about the kind of humanity that, without any restraints, can take over
the uprooting of all beings from Being as its world-historical ‘task.’”
Even if the Jews could not be blamed for the introduction of Platonism
or for its hold over Western society, they were the chief carriers of
its “task.” By asserting liberal rights to demand inclusion in such
nations as Germany, the Jews were estranging those countries’ citizens
from their humanity -- the shared historical identity that made them
distinct from other peoples. This reasoning formed the basis for a truly
poisonous hostility toward the Jews, and it was perhaps Heidegger’s
most damning judgment of them. Now that the notebooks have come into the
light, however, such passages constitute the most damning evidence
against the philosopher himself.
So
what did Heidegger think should be done about the Jews? Did he agree
with the Nazi policies? The notebooks give readers little to go on;
Heidegger seems to have had no taste for detailed policy discussions.
Nevertheless, the philosopher spoke through his silence. Despite his
criticism of the Nazis and their crude biological racism, he wrote
nothing against Hitler’s laws targeting the Jews. Although Heidegger
resigned as rector of Freiburg before Hitler passed the Nuremberg Laws,
which classified German citizens according to race, he had assumed the
role in 1933, just after the Nazis enacted their first anti-Jewish
codes, which excluded Jews from civil service and university posts (and
which Heidegger helped implement). During a lecture in the winter of
1933–34, he warned a hall full of students that “the enemy can have
attached itself to the innermost roots” of the people and that they, the
German students, must be prepared to attack such an enemy “with the
goal of total annihilation.” Heidegger did not specify “the enemy,” but
for the Nazis, they included Germany’s communists; its Roma, or Gypsies;
and, above all, its Jews. This chilling prefiguration of Hitler’s Final
Solution is unmistakable, and Heidegger never explained, let alone
apologized for, such horrendous statements.
DEATH OF A PHILOSOPHER
Trawny
ends his analysis by arguing that the anti-Semitism of the notebooks
will require a thorough reevaluation of Heidegger’s thought, and he is
right. Even if, as Trawny is at pains to remind his readers, the
notebooks show that Heidegger became increasingly critical of the Nazis
as early as 1933, they also demonstrate just how firmly his
anti-Semitism was rooted in his philosophical ideas.
Scholars
now need to answer new questions about Heidegger’s motivations. For one
thing, how could he have been so hostile to the Jews if he had so many
Jewish students and a Jewish mistress? Trawny offers some insight into
this puzzle by pointing to the notion of the so-called exceptional Jew,
an idea that circulated among even the most virulent anti-Semites,
including top Nazis. According to this view, in spite of the baleful
impact of the Jewish people as a whole, rare Jewish individuals could
stand out. Trawny cites Arendt herself, who reminded readers in Eichmann in Jerusalem
that Hitler himself was thought to have lent personal protection to 340
“first-rate Jews” by awarding them German or half-Jewish status. In
deeming these Jews exceptions, such practices actually reinforced the
general rule by allowing anti-Semites to explain away as anomalies those
Jews with whom they felt some personal connection.
Another
open question concerns Heidegger’s intentions in prescribing, much less
allowing, that the notebooks be published. Initially, of course,
Heidegger kept them hidden to conceal their critique of the Nazis, and
after the war, given his experience with the denazification process, he
must have feared they would harm his reputation. So why release the
notebooks at all, and as the capstone to his collected works? A
charitable answer is that Heidegger wanted to set the record straight,
to submit all the facts to public scrutiny. A more sinister explanation
is that he remained loyal to his own understanding of the National
Socialist revolution, even if he believed that the movement had betrayed
him. In either case, he clearly didn’t want to be around to deal with
the fallout.
Whatever
the philosopher’s motivations, the notebooks will almost certainly
spell the end of Heidegger as an intellectual cult figure, and that is a
welcome development. Richard Wolin, an intellectual historian and
longtime critic of Heidegger’s politics, leaves open the possibility of a
qualified philosophical engagement with Heidegger’s work but argues
that scholars will have to tread carefully. As he wrote in the Jewish Review of Books
last summer, “Any discussion of Heidegger’s legacy that downplays or
diminishes the extent of his political folly stands guilty, by
extension, of perpetuating the philosophical betrayal initiated by the
Master himself.”
But
Heidegger might well have wanted the cultish obsession with his persona
to die in order for his philosophical questions to live on. He wanted
his readers to feel the full force of his questions on their own terms,
not to fixate on his or any other particular responses to them. The
motto Heidegger chose for his collected writings was therefore fitting:
“Ways, not works.”
Author Peter Trawny [4]
Publisher Klostermann Vittorio GmbH
Year 2014
Pages 0 pp.
ISBN 3465042263
Price $0.00
Copyright © 2002-2012 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.
(Photo Credit: © 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/warcrime.htm
Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
Index of Crimes
1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
5. The United States intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
6. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi military personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized individual flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease fire.
7. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
8. The United States intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
9. President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings, and commercial structures.
10. President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.
12. The United States waged war on the environment.
13. President Bush encouraged and aided Shiite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
14. President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
15. The United States continued its assault on Iraq after the cease fire, invading and occupying areas at will.
16. The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
17. The United States, having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
18. President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
19. The United States has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region.
All rights reserved.
US WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
by Ramsey Clark and Others
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
by Ramsey Clark and Others
Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.
(Photo Credit: © 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/warcrime.htm
Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
Index of Crimes
1. The United States engaged in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf.
2. President Bush from August 2, 1990, intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily.
3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
4. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed civilian life, commercial and business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters, residential areas, historical sites, private vehicles and civilian government offices.
5. The United States intentionally bombed indiscriminately throughout Iraq.
6. The United States intentionally bombed and destroyed Iraqi military personnel, used excessive force, killed soldiers seeking to surrender and in disorganized individual flight, often unarmed and far from any combat zones and randomly and wantonly killed Iraqi soldiers and destroyed materiel after the cease fire.
7. The United States used prohibited weapons capable of mass destruction and inflicting indiscriminate death and unnecessary suffering against both military and civilian targets.
8. The United States intentionally attacked installations in Iraq containing dangerous substances and forces.
9. President Bush ordered U.S. forces to invade Panama, resulting in the deaths of 1,000 to 4,000 Panamanians and the destruction of thousands of private dwellings, public buildings, and commercial structures.
10. President Bush obstructed justice and corrupted United Nations functions as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace and war crimes.
11. President Bush usurped the Constitutional power of Congress as a means of securing power to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and other high crimes.
12. The United States waged war on the environment.
13. President Bush encouraged and aided Shiite Muslims and Kurds to rebel against the government of Iraq causing fratricidal violence, emigration, exposure, hunger and sickness and thousands of deaths. After the rebellion failed, the U.S. invaded and occupied parts of Iraq without authority in order to increase division and hostility within Iraq.
14. President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
15. The United States continued its assault on Iraq after the cease fire, invading and occupying areas at will.
16. The United States has violated and condoned violations of human rights, civil liberties and the U.S. Bill of Rights in the United States, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to achieve its purpose of military domination.
17. The United States, having destroyed Iraq's economic base, demands reparations which will permanently impoverish Iraq and threaten its people with famine and epidemic.
18. President Bush systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain constant support in the media for his military and political goals.
19. The United States has by force secured a permanent military presence in the Gulf, the control of its oil resources and geopolitical domination of the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf region.
No comments:
Post a Comment