Jeff, few other things which I was not able to say in my previous post as I had reached the word limit, and being self-taught in the techniques of the computer, I don't know how to do a wordprocessing package.

You should read Jan-Werner Muller's book "A Dangerous Mind" and learn something about the tremendous influence Schmitt had in post-war European thought, both among the Right and the Left, including The Frankfurt School and its luminaries, such as Adorno, and the younger Gunter Maschke, whom Adorno "lauded as a 'boy genius'", who however, soon made his salto libero, his jump to freedom from the morally, politically, and intellectually bankrupt Left and went to the other side.

Your quote from Goering for the purpose of casting your sotto voce nefarious association against my argument is quite revealing. Do you need a bugbear to make your argument? Your description of the events of the twenties are correct, but as Marx remarked, it's the interpretation that counts, not the description.. And in this exercise you fail completely. The fascist threat to Germany both from the Right and the Left in that period was as real, as Islamo-fascism is today. And ironically, the strawman Goering demolishes your argument from the right.

My contention stands for what is its worth. Dare to topple it by logic and argument, not by associating it to the 'Nazi Connection'. That is the attitude and tactic of nipple-fed intellectuals of the old/new Left.

KOTZABASIS

Con/Thomistocles

With due respect to the venerable style of your arguments. I think you are off the track. You appear to see terrorism as some sought of concrete, monolithic Islamo-Fascist) movement demanding decisive statesmanlike solutions.

Churcill's struggle agaist the fascists constantly resonate but the matter at issue is NOT big time terrorism and it doesn'tt have a definite start and ending like most conventional wars.

If you see the terror enemy as monolithic, you are talking about a state of war, which we could have waged against "big terrorist threats" within Australia since 9/11 and up till now, but we didn't. This is because the security agencies didn't and don't see the high level of threat that you perceive.

Terrorism comes and goes and is unpredictable. There is always a threat so once laws are made its very unlikely that they would be repealed.

As I said in my earlier post your nuclear threat scenerio has more to do with a military style attack at the large scale bin Laden end of the spectrum and not much to do with the proposed pedestrian bomber laws at issue.

The high level anti terrorist posture that you are arguing for cannot be maintained in a "peacetime" society unless it is like China or North Korea because terrorists may not strike for years.

So while your words are rousing they are not necessarily helpful.

I think that Con is basically ignorant of practical history. Many fearful people have wished for an "Iron Statesman" ("a Man"!! -- to quote Hess, amongst many others) and regretted the consequences. Con might do well to read my forthcoming book, "Dictatorial CEOs and their lieutenants: the cases of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ataturk and Mao". He might even do a book review!!
Jeff Schubert

Jeff, why you continue to pick your quotes solely and so doggedly from Nazis (Hess)?

Who would you have preferred to have against Hitler, Chamberlain or Churchill (The Iron Statesman)? I notice however, that among your six bete noirs, Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, is not among them. So maybe, not all 'iron-man' politicians are malign. And in the reading knowledge of YOUR PRACTICAL HISTORY, are there not any benign Iron Statesmen, such as Pericles, and Marcus Antonius, to mention two. I would suggest you read Plutarch's Lives, so you can cure yourself from your dolorous state of seeing ALL strong politicians as malign.

I don't know what you have written in your forthcoming book, but judging from your retorts from these posts, your book will be worthless. And therefore, it will not be worthy of a review, even from the lowest of reviewrs.

KOTZABASIS

Dear plantagenet

Please 'search' your mind and tell me if you can find anything more monolithic than religious fanaticism. Its danger is great and ominous because of its invisibility. It inreases in geometrical proportions, because it runs parallel to the 'leaps and bounds'development of technology. As the carriers of this danger are technically educated barbarians, with a PC in one hand and the Koran in the other. Do you doubt, that once these fanatics have possession of nuclear weapons they will not use them against the West?

CON

Con,

Dr Janet Albrechtsen plagiarises Dr Josef Goebbels -- and proves my point!
http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3688
Jeff Schubert

You can not eliminate terrorism with laws and fortress solutions. Terrorism is only one element of our global problems. Laws encourage and stimulate the brain to circumvent the law, find loop holes and challenge legislation, examples of this brain activity being hackers, drug smugglers and corporate crime.
The concept of a “War on Terror” sends the wrong message. A war means at least two opponents and is therefore divisive, it separates people encouraging martyrdom.
Once terrorism reaches the martyrdom stage which is exactly where we are today, a whole new approach is needed. Our efforts must be compassion and massive assistance for poverty world wide. Dealing with terrorism by the ways proposed is counter productive and a distraction from the very necessary global solutions.Tamica