From the weekend, there was lead-in points for last night's "Tough But Fair" TV on Germany's Channel One (ARD). The topic was terrorism and one might think it'd been a fairly decent discussion.
About fifteen minutes into the piece, the host got to a journalist who'd been recently into ISIS-controlled lands, and he dumped his vast interviews into the mix. The big subject? The responsibility for ISIS existing? George W. Bush. Yeah.
So, the way that he explained this is that after the 9-11 crowd had killed 3,500 people from western civilization....George W. Bush went and killed 500,000 Iraqis. Because of this imbalance....ISIS is thus created to fight unfairness. The audience applauded at this point and at least one of the other guests chimed in that it was correct.
No one asked what right that the 3,500 had to die....if they had asked....there would have been mostly silence in the room. The sad suggestion here is that if George W. Bush had only killed 3,500 Iraqis....everything would have been absolutely fine, and life would be perfect in this world of balanced numbers. This is the type of mentality that people advocate.
So, the remainder of the program went mostly this way.....no effort to define the terrorism players, significant comments over the evils of the internet, Twitter, and Facebook for helping terrorists communicate, and the ethical dilemma facing German citizens because we will have to take rights away to achieve some success in preserving the peace.
The top comical piece from the night? At some point, the group got around to the topic of brutal dictators being the only method of controlling radicals. So Saddam got mentioned, and Egypt's Sadat/Mubarak. I guess they could have thrown in Syria's Assad (Dad and Son). Maybe they could have thrown in the Saudi management team, along with Libya's brutal dictator as well. As the media crowd tried to suggest....brutal dictators keep radicals of religion under control.....so it's a good thing.
I sat there....thinking over this....then it'd make perfect sense. Mexico's brutal dictator-presidents of the past were the correct answer in keeping radicalism under control. The Soviet Union, Russia, and China were perfectly right for brutal leadership....to preserve peace. The Cubans were right to use brutal dictators....as was the El Salvadorian leadership of the 1970s. Same deal for Chile, Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Argentina, South Africa, and Iran (using the evil Shah to preserve peace).
Using the help of brutal dictators....it's hard to see why you'd even condemn any of them....because they only seek to protect you from the even-worse radicals.
I suspect any German who sat and watched this weird discussion group.....came to the end....confused and dazed.
If I were Germans worried about terrorism, relying upon these characters of the panel....I wouldn't worry. The terrorists will be in charge within fifty years.