Chattanooga terror; islamisk eller bare ekstremistisk?

Akademia, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Jihad, Multikultur, Muslimer, Politik, Terror, USA, islam, muhammed — Drokles on August 1, 2015 at 1:25 pm

Da muslimen Mohammad Abdulazeez for et par uger siden myrdede ubevæbnede marinesoldater, var han så muslimsk oven i hovedet eller var han blot almindelig ekstrem? Det diskuterer Robert Spencer, Dr. Zuhdi Jasse fra American Islamic Forum for Democracy og Anjem Choudary med Jamie Glazov

Den officielle politik i USA synes nu at være at betegne islamisk terror som ekstremistisk terror skriver Arutz Sheva

Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson announced the policy this past Friday at Aspen Institute’s annual security forum in Washington, D.C.  He explained that though it was a Muslim terrorist who shot to death four unarmed Marines in Tennessee two weeks ago, the government will call the attack, and other similar ones, “violent extremism” and not “Islamic terrorism” - out of respect for the Muslim community.
Johnson said it is “critical” to refrain from the “Islamic” label in order to “build trust” among Muslims.

The Tennessee murderer, Mohammad Abdulazeez, is officially a “homegrown violent extremist,” according to the government – even though he blogged about his Islamic religious motivations for the attack. He and his family also attended a local mosque controlled by a terror-tied Islamic trust.

Johnson explained that if officials called Islamic terrorism “Islamic,” they’d “get nowhere” in gaining the “cooperation” of the Muslim community.

The moderator of the panel tried to protest: “Isn’t [the] government denying the fundamental religious component of this kind of extremism by not using the word Islamic?”

“I could not disagree more,” Johnson responded, and explained that Islam “is about peace.”

Her er en bevægende montage af folkets farvel til en af de myrdede marinesoldater Lance Cpl. Skip Wells

Hvorfor bombes der?

Diverse — Drokles on August 1, 2015 at 11:49 am

Der sprænger efterhånden dagligt granater i Malmø. Det sker oven i de andre stigninger i vold og skudvekslinger.

“Vi skal have bedre kontrol over indsmuglingen af våben til Sverige fra især Balkan, ikke mindst over Øresundsbroen. Jeg tror, at svensk politi bliver nødt til at være til stede på Balkan for at samarbejde med lokale myndigheder”

Det siger Sveriges indenrigsminister, Anders Ygeman ifølge Danmarks Radio. Er der ikke nogle af vores anstændige politikere, der kan oplyse svenskerne om at grænsekontrol ikke hjælper? Især når det intet har med noget at gøre, for som analysen lyder for det svenske konsensus:

“Vi har haft 10-15 år med stigende arbejdsløshed, voksende kløfter og dårligere resultater i skolerne. Det er klart, at det smitter af på samfundsudviklingen og kriminaliteten, siger Anders Ygeman.

Så det er altså dagpengemodtagerne, der får kørt granater til Sverige? Og hvad siger de økonomiske teorier om hvor dårlig en økonomi skal være førend loven om dagpengemodtagerbomber træder i kraft? Anderledes klare synes både Daily Mail og Jyllands-posten at være når de kæder brandattentater mod bl.a asylcentre og senest en asylansøgervenlig politiker sammen med det yderste højre. Her er spørgsmålet om også tyskerne har haft 10-15 år med stigende arbejdsløshed, voksende kløfter og dårligere resultater i skolerne, der klart nok smitter af på samfundsudviklingen og kriminaliteten ikke en del af ligningen.

Fjerde Planned Parenthood video: “Another boy!”

Etik, Forbrydelse og straf, USA — Drokles on July 31, 2015 at 9:28 pm

Den fjerde video, der viser den amerikanske familierådgivningsorganisation Planned Parenthoods lemfældige omgang med menneskelige fostre er blevet frigivet af Center For Medical Progress, der skriver

DENVER, July 30–New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Savita Ginde, negotiating a fetal body parts deal, agreeing multiple times to illicit pricing per body part harvested, and suggesting ways to avoid legal consequences.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM) is a wealthy, multi-state Planned Parenthood affiliate that does over 10,000 abortions per year. PPRM has a contract to supply aborted fetal tissue to Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Ginde at the abortion-clinic headquarters of PPRM in Denver to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs. When the actors request intact fetal specimens, Ginde reveals that in PPRM’s abortion practice, “Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then we are intact.”

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

When the buyers ask Ginde if “compensation could be specific to the specimen?” Ginde agrees, “Okay.” Later on in the abortion clinic’s pathological laboratory, standing over an aborted fetus, Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing,” Ginde remarks. “If you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.”

Ginde implies that PPRM’s lawyer, Kevin Paul, is helping the affiliate skirt the fetal tissue law: “He’s got it figured out that he knows that even if, because we talked to him in the beginning, you know, we were like, ‘We don’t want to get called on,’ you know, ‘selling fetal parts across states.’” The buyers ask, “And you feel confident that they’re building those layers?” to which Ginde replies, “I’m confident that our Legal will make sure we’re not put in that situation.”

As the buyers and Planned Parenthood workers identify body parts from last fetus in the path lab, a Planned Parenthood medical assistant announces: “Another boy!”

The video is the latest by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Elected officials need to listen to the public outcry for an immediate moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding while the 10 state investigations and 3 Congressional committees determine the full extent of Planned Parenthood’s sale of baby parts.” Daleiden continues, “Planned Parenthood’s recent call for the NIH to convene an expert panel to ‘study’ fetal experimentation is absurd after suggestions from Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Ginde that ‘research’ can be used as a catch-all to cover-up baby parts sales. The biggest problem is bad actors like Planned Parenthood who hold themselves above the law in order to harvest and make money off of aborted fetal brains, hearts, and livers.”

National Review skriver at den næste video måske bliver endnu værre.

Død over Amerika, same procedure…

Atomvåben, Diverse, Folkevandring, Iran, USA, islam — Drokles on July 31, 2015 at 9:11 pm

Herhjemme vånder erhvervslivet sig sammen med venstrefløjen over at regeringen og dansk Folkeparti leger med tanken om oplysningsvideoer, rettet mod folkevandringen. Man er grundlæggende bange for vores renomme i udlandet, at højtuddannede udlændinge ikke vil komme til Danmark under indtryk af at kampagnen er rettet imod dem. Men Bosse og co. kan ånde lettet op, så smålige er de ikke i det store udland. Her kan man rask væk ønske død over hinanden og stadig indgå endsidige tillidsøvelser med masseudslettelsesvåben fortæller Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage Magazine

Secretary of State John Kerry is still seeking a nuanced explanation for Iran’s government saying, “Death to America”. He called the Iranian government’s cries of “Death to America” “not helpful” and suggested that the Supreme Leader might not really mean it.

And now Kerry would like to emphasize that aside from the “Death to America” chants and the nuclear bombs and constant threats of war, at no time was he made aware of an Iranian plan to destroy America.

(…)

Well there are two options.

1. Iran’s leaders keep saying things they don’t mean… which means we probably shouldn’t trust them not to go nuclear despite the deal

2. They do mean what they say… in which case we know why they want the nukes

So does Iran have a “Death to America” policy? Here you go, John.

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

Sounds like a policy.

The New Yorker prøvede at forklare at det er en gammel vane at ønske død over hinanden og i øvrigt er det ikke flertallet af iranerne, der råber med

Nasser Hadian got his doctorate at the University of Tennessee and taught at Columbia. He is now a Tehran University political scientist and influential voice in policy circles. His daughter is in graduate school at Tulane. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is meaningless,” he told me. “It’s actually not acceptable in our culture, because they’re saying death to a whole people. It’s said by only twenty per cent of the population. And only a teeny per cent of that twenty per cent believes in it. They think America crystallizes and stands for all bad things in the world—the same way some Americans think about Iran. America has killed more Iranians than Iranians have killed Americans. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran, when hundreds of thousands died.”

He went on, “For others, it’s part of a religious ritual. But the élite who use it exploit the term for political reasons. Poll after poll shows that Iranians are greater supporters of America than any other Muslim country in the region.

“So whom does America want to rely on to judge public opinion?” Hadian asked. “The twenty per cent who do shout ‘Death to America!’ or the eighty per cent who don’t?”

Mere relevant vil nok være at spørge: Hvem får kontrollen over atom-arsenalet? De tyve procent, der har magten i landet eller de firs procent hvis mening tæller hat? De tyve procent var hurtige med deres svar

‘De’ er på sporet af os

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Greenpeace, Historie, IPCC, Information, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Daily Mail skriver at et hold psykologer under ledelse af Stephan Lewndowsky mener at kunne godtgøre at klimaskeptikere ofte er konspirationsteoretikere.

They found around a fifth of the comments about the research ‘can be considered conspiracist’.

It builds on a previous survey that the researchers conducted, which found up to 40 per cent of those who are skeptical about global warming use imagery that invoked conspiracy theories.

This includes the use of words like ’scam’ and repeated references to faked data and collusion between scientists and governments to deliberately conceal evidence.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, an experimental psychologist at the University of Bristol who led the work, said: ‘These results add to a growing body of research on the nature of internet discourse and the role of the blogosphere in climate denial.

‘It also confirms that conspiratorial elements are readily identifiable in blogosphere discourse’

The paper, which is published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, provides a damning view of skeptical bloggers and those who comment on their websites.

Og det kommer fra de, der dyrker allehånde teser om , Big Oil, Big Kooch, republikanere, kapitalister og gamle, hvide, protestantiske mænd. Som titlen på Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt praler med, så er hele debatten om klimaet skabt og holdes kunstigt i live af skumle interesser. Læs blot Al Gores et als anbefalinger

- Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ’safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book. (Former Vice President Al Gore, author of An Inconvenient Truth)

- The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn’t get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists … Oreskes and Conway do a great public service. (Huffington Post)

Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide[s] both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now. (OnEarth)

Merchants of Doubt might be one of the most important books of the year. Exhaustively researched and documented, it explains how over the past several decades mercenary scientists have partnered with tobacco companies and chemical corporations to help them convince the public that their products are safe - even when solid science proves otherwise…Merchants of Doubt is a hefty read, well-researched and comprehensive…I hope it sells, because what it has to say needs to be heard. (Christian Science Monitor)

- Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? (Austin Science Policy Examiner)

Merchants of Doubt udkom også som film. Jeg kunne benytte lejligheden til at tale om Climategate, den store email-lækage fra East Anglias klimaenhed, hvor man sorte på hvidt kunne læse hvorledes nogle af FNs klimapanels mest centrale forskere aftalte manipulation af data og metoder, obstruerede offentlighedens tilgang til date, truede kollegaer og påvirkede fagbladsredaktører, manipulerede fagfælle processen, skændtes og udtrykte stor tvivl. Men ikke mindst inddelte verden i de der var for og imod ‘tha cause”, ’sagen’. Men når det nu handler om, hvad der er man synes at se i skyggerne, der ikke er der vil jeg hellere slå ned på en skandale ud i klimadebatten, der hurtigt blev døbt Fakegate.

Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne nemlig i 2012 afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine, der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute, modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere,  der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister, der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder, at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!), der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David i kamp for sandhed mod Goliat.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt en tid at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele.

Sådan kan det gå. Men vi skal tale om sølvpapirshatte for selv om Glieck gik over stregen og forfalskede den virkelighed han gerne ville se var han ene om sin udåd. Men reaktionerne fra fremtrædende medier og forskere afslørede til gengæld at hans konspiratoriske univers var fast forankret bredt i den klimaalarmistiske højadel. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed EFTER at Heartland selv havde påpeget at det var et tydeligt fremmedelement

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikret sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med, kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sværere ved og sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser, som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Også Information havde en artikel om sagen, som de lystigt kaldte “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin”, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen. Såøh, sølvpapirhatte er mere udbredt blandt alarmister, der jo i udgangspunkt tror mennesket står bag vejrliget. Derfor er det heller ikke så overraskende når man læser i Daily Mail, at en professor Peter Wadhams ved Cambridge tror at ‘dem’ går og slår hans forskerkollegaer ihjel, blandt ved hjælp af lynnedslag - ja, vi kontrollerer jo vejret

Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces.

The trio had been studying the polar ice caps - with a focus on sea ice - when they died within a few months of each other in 2013.

Professor Laxon, 49, a director of the Centre for Polar Observation at University College London, was at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex when he fell down a flight of stairs and died.

Meanwhile oceanographer Dr Boyd, 54, was out walking his dogs near his home in Port Appin, Argyll, western Scotland, in January 2013 when he was struck by lightning and killed instantly.

Just months later in April, Dr Giles, 35, was cycling to work at UCL where she lectured when she was hit by a tipper truck in Victoria, central London, and died.

(sammenfatningen om Fakegate er sammenklistret af nogle tidligere posteringer om sagen)

Stadig svært at erkende kristenforfølgelsen endsige dens ophav

Eliza Grizwold skriver i New Yok Times fyldigt om muslimernes forfølgelse af kristne i Mellemøsten

From 1910 to 2010, the number of Christians in the Middle East — in countries like Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Jordan — continued to decline; once 14 percent of the population, Christians now make up roughly 4 percent. (In Iran and Turkey, they’re all but gone.) In Lebanon, the only country in the region where Christians hold significant political power, their numbers have shrunk over the past century, to 34 percent from 78 percent of the population. Low birthrates have contributed to this decline, as well as hostile political environments and economic crisis. Fear is also a driver. The rise of extremist groups, as well as the perception that their communities are vanishing, causes people to leave.

“‘‘If we attend to minority rights only after slaughter has begun, then we have already failed,’’ siger FNs Menneskerets Højkommissær Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein. Demokraten Anna Eshoo, der sidder i Repræsentanternes Hus for Californien siger “Christianity is under an existential threat”. Men alligevel har Det Hvide Hus uligt meget sværere ved at anerkende kristne ledere end muslimske skriver Raymond Ibrahim i Gatestone Institute.

During the height of one of the most brutal months of Muslim persecution of Christians, the U.S. State Department exposed its double standards against persecuted Christian minorities.

Sister Diana, an influential Iraqi Christian leader, who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012.

She was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq — including Sunni, Shia and Yazidi, among others — to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every religious leader from this delegation to Washington D.C. was granted a visa — except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana.

After this refusal became public, many Americans protested, some writing to their congressmen. Discussing the nun’s visa denial, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said:

This is an administration which never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists … I hope that as it gets attention that Secretary Kerry will reverse it. If he doesn’t, Congress has to investigate, and the person who made this decision ought to be fired.

The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa.

This is not the first time the U.S. State Department has not granted a visa to a Christian leader coming from a Muslim region. Last year, after the United States Institute for Peace brought together the governors of Nigeria’s mostly Muslim northern states for a conference in the U.S., the State Department blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, Jonah David Jang.

Greenfield har en lang udførlig liste over den undertrykkelse kristne udsættes for i den muslimske verden, der er værd at gøre sig nedslået over. Men få politikere synes at kere sig. I Griswolds lange, velskrevne, detaljerede og på en gang indsigtsfulde og manipulerende artikel skriver hun, at det har været en topprioritet for både Bush og Obama ikke at tage sig ud sig ud som kristne korsfarere

It has been nearly impossible for two U.S. presidents — Bush, a conservative evangelical; and Obama, a progressive liberal — to address the plight of Christians explicitly for fear of appearing to play into the crusader and ‘‘clash of civilizations’’ narratives the West is accused of embracing. In 2007, when Al Qaeda was kidnapping and killing priests in Mosul, Nina Shea, who was then a U.S. commissioner for religious freedom, says she approached the secretary of state at the time, Condoleezza Rice, who told her the United States didn’t intervene in ‘‘sectarian’’ issues. Rice now says that protecting religious freedom in Iraq was a priority both for her and for the Bush administration. But the targeted violence and mass Christian exodus remained unaddressed. ‘‘One of the blind spots of the Bush administration was the inability to grapple with this as a direct byproduct of the invasion,’’ says Timothy Shah, the associate director of Georgetown University’s Religious Freedom Project.

More recently, the White House has been criticized for eschewing the term ‘‘Christian’’ altogether. The issue of Christian persecution is politically charged; the Christian right has long used the idea that Christianity is imperiled to rally its base. When ISIS massacred Egyptian Copts in Libya this winter, the State Department came under fire for referring to the victims merely as ‘‘Egyptian citizens.’’ Daniel Philpott, a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, says, ‘‘When ISIS is no longer said to have religious motivations nor the minorities it attacks to have religious identities, the Obama administration’s caution about religion becomes excessive.’’

Politisk korrekthed og hensynsbetændelse til muslimske vrangforestillinger betales af de kristne. Og politikerne høster veksler for deres kulturelle sensitivitet fra den smagfulde venstrefløj. Den umiddelbare historie og situation ridser Griswold op således

For more than a decade, extremists have targeted Christians and other minorities, who often serve as stand-ins for the West. This was especially true in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, which caused hundreds of thousands to flee. ‘‘Since 2003, we’ve lost priests, bishops and more than 60 churches were bombed,’’ Bashar Warda, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop of Erbil, said. With the fall of Saddam Hussein, Christians began to leave Iraq in large numbers, and the population shrank to less than 500,000 today from as many as 1.5 million in 2003.

The Arab Spring only made things worse. As dictators like Mubarak in Egypt and Qaddafi in Libya were toppled, their longstanding protection of minorities also ended. Now, ISIS is looking to eradicate Christians and other minorities altogether. The group twists the early history of Christians in the region — their subjugation by the sword — to legitimize its millenarian enterprise. Recently, ISIS posted videos delineating the second-class status of Christians in the caliphate. Those unwilling to pay the jizya tax or to convert would be destroyed, the narrator warned, as the videos culminated in the now-­infamous scenes of Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians in Libya being marched onto the beach and beheaded, their blood running into the surf.

The future of Christianity in the region of its birth is now uncertain. ‘‘How much longer can we flee before we and other minorities become a story in a history book?’’ says Nuri Kino, a journalist and founder of the advocacy group Demand for Action. According to a Pew study, more Christians are now faced with religious persecution than at any time since their early history.

Griswolds artikel kan absolut anbefales, hvis man vil være klogere på de kristnes situation og Mellemøstens morads. Men jeg skrev at den også var manipulerende og det er den i sin apologetiske omgang med islam. Selvfølgelig, fristes man nemlig til at sige.

Så skønt Griswold er langt fremme i erkendelsen af de kristnes ulykkelige situation i Mellemøsten (i hele  den muslimske verden, rent faktisk, og den kommunistiske også), og mens politikerne tøver, så er hun ikke nået dertil, hvor hun kan beskrive det reelle problem. Det er generiske “ekstremister”, der er problemet for Griswold, mens Condoleezza Rice trods alt vidste mere end det med sit “the United States didn’t intervene in ‘‘sectarian’’ issues” - og så svigtede de alligevel. Så civilisationernes sammenstød bliver derfor kun et narrativ for Griswold, en fortælling og ikke en beskrivelse af de faktiske forhold. (”Israel and Palestine” har en konflikt, en formulering, der betyder at Israel er en illegitim stat, der hvor Palæstina eksisterer).

Griswolds artikel er vævet over nogle flygtninges frygtelige historier med den 31 årige Rana og hendes mand som hovedroller. Ranas mand Diyaa beskrives som “a tyrant (…) who, after 14 years of marriage, wouldn’t let (), Rana, 31, have her own mobile phone. He isolated her from friends and family, guarding her jealously”. Han var tillige nærig. Jeg mindes ikke en historie om palæstinensiske ofre, der hænges ud som dumme svin. Nuvel, mennesker er mennesker og Diyaas karakterbrister drukner hurtigt i beskrivelserne af det muslimske vanvid. Bortset fra, at det gør det ikke helt, for islam holdes fri.

Lad os, som enhver god film, fokusere på parallelhistorierne. I det historiske afsnit hedder det fra Griswolds hånd

When the first Islamic armies arrived from the Arabian Peninsula during the seventh century, the Assyrian Church of the East was sending missionaries to China, India and Mongolia. The shift from Christianity to Islam happened gradually. Much as the worship of Eastern cults largely gave way to Christianity, Christianity gave way to Islam. Under Islamic rule, Eastern Christians lived as protected people, dhimmi: They were subservient and had to pay the jizya, but were often allowed to observe practices forbidden by Islam, including eating pork and drinking alcohol. Muslim rulers tended to be more tolerant of minorities than their Christian counterparts, and for 1,500 years, different religions thrived side by side.

One hundred years ago, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War I ushered in the greatest period of violence against Christians in the region. The genocide waged by the Young Turks in the name of nationalism, not religion, left at least two million Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks dead. Nearly all were Christian. Among those who survived, many of the better educated left for the West. Others settled in Iraq and Syria, where they were protected by the military dictators who courted these often economically powerful minorities.

De islamiske hære ankom, skiftet fra kristendom skete gradvist og naturligt, kristne var beskyttet mod et vist kontingent (en lille del af folks motivation for det ‘naturlige’ skift), de muslimske fyrster var tolerante og religionerne trivedes side om side. Men så kommer nationalismen som følge af Osmannerrigets sammenbrud og begår folkemord. Det er ikke islam, det er end ikke ‘religion’! Alligevel sker folkemordet på kristne.

Det er djævlen i detaljen. Fortællingen er tilstrækkelig upræcist formuleret til ikke at være direkte løgn, men vildledende. Folkemordet på de kristne skete ikke som følge af Osmannerrigets sammenbrud, det startede med tiltagende pogromer i 1890′erne og blev færdiggjort i 1919, inden sammenbruddet. Og det var en erklæret jihad mod de vantro. Derfor fandt grusomhederne også en naturlig klangbund blandt almindelige muslimer, der tog ivrigt del i grusomhederne. Den dag i dag er kirkerne i Tyrkiet på vej mod udryddelse. Og regionens diktatorer, hvem var det nu de beskyttede de minoriteterne imod?

Så lad os vende tilbage til Rana og Diyaa og de andre kristne minoriteters historie om da nutidens islamiske hær ankom til den kristne by Qaraqosh, hvor de boede. Flygtninge fra Mosul fortalte de lokale at “The militants painted a red Arabic ‘‘n,’’ for Nasrane, a slur, on Christian homes”. Just ankommet kendte den islamiske hær ISIS ikke de kristne i Mosul - men det gjorde de kristnes muslimske naboer, klangbunden og de malede ‘n’ for nasrane på de kristnes hjem.

De kurdiske styrker, peshmerga, der havde været ene om at give ISIS modstand, trak sig fra området. Da kurderne havde afvæbnet de kristne og ISIS afskåret vandforsyningnen, flygtede de fleste af Qaraqosh indbyggere og efterlod kun de svageste, gamle og syge og en enkelt fulderik tilbage. Og så Diyaa, der nægtede Rana at flygte fordi han ikke mente ISIS vil ankomme.

As Diyaa and Rana hid in their basement, ISIS broke into stores and looted them. Over the next two weeks, militants rooted out most of the residents cowering in their homes, searching house to house. The armed men roamed Qaraqosh on foot and in pickups. They marked the walls of farms and businesses ‘‘Property of the Islamic State.’’ ISIS now held not just Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, but also Ramadi and Fallujah. (During the Iraq War, the fighting in these three places accounted for 30 percent of U.S. casualties.) In Qaraqosh, as in Mosul, ISIS offered residents a choice: They could either convert or pay the jizya, the head tax levied against all ‘‘People of the Book’’: Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews. If they refused, they would be killed, raped or enslaved, their wealth taken as spoils of war.

Således ser det ud når den islamiske hære ankom, skiftet fra kristendom sker gradvist forstået som et rykud, hvilket er naturligt omstændighederne taget i betragtning. Og de muslimske herrers tolerance var baseret på beskyttelsespenge. Således skal religionerne trives side om side, hvis altså ikke man foretrak at blive “dræbt, voldtaget eller gjort til slave”.

Men ISIS bløder op i dovenskab efter at rende og lede efter de sidste kristne og tilbyder “what they call ‘exile and hardship’”. Diyaa og Rana kommer frem fra deres skjul og melder sig til ISIS sundhedscenters ‘checkups’’, der er en slet skjult eufemisme for en visitering efter eventuelle værdier. Og, skal det hurtigt vise sig, så har mennesker også en særlig værdi i sig selv i det islamiske tankesæt

By 9 a.m., ISIS had separated men from women. Seated in the crowd, the local ISIS emir, Saeed Abbas, surveyed the female prisoners. His eyes lit on Aida Hana Noah, 43, who was holding her 3-year-old daughter, Christina. Noah said she felt his gaze and gripped Christina closer. For two weeks, she’d been at home with her daughter and her husband, Khadr Azzou Abada, 65. He was blind, and Aida decided that the journey north would be too hard for him. So she sent her 25-year-old son with her three other children, who ranged in age from 10 to 13, to safety. She thought Christina too young to be without her mother.

ISIS scanned the separate groups of men and women. ‘‘You’’ and ‘‘you,’’ they pointed. Some of the captives realized what ISIS was doing, survivors told me later, dividing the young and healthy from the older and weak. One, Talal Abdul Ghani, placed a final call to his family before the fighters confiscated his phone. He had been publicly whipped for refusing to convert to Islam, as his sisters, who fled from other towns, later recounted. ‘‘Let me talk to everybody,’’ he wept. ‘‘I don’t think they’re letting me go.’’ It was the last time they heard from him.

No one was sure where either bus was going. As the jihadists directed the weaker and older to the first of two buses, one 49-year-old woman, Sahar, protested that she’d been separated from her husband, Adel. Although he was 61, he was healthy and strong and had been held back. One fighter reassured her, saying, ‘‘These others will follow.’’ Sahar, Aida and her blind husband, Khadr, boarded the first bus. The driver, a man they didn’t know, walked down the aisle. Without a word, he took Christina from her mother’s arms. ‘‘Please, in the name of God, give her back,’’ Aida pleaded. The driver carried Christina into the medical center. Then he returned without the child. As the people in the bus prayed to leave town, Aida kept begging for Christina. Finally, the driver went inside again. He came back empty-handed.

(…)

As the bus rumbled north out of town, Aida sat crumpled in a seat next to her husband. Many of the 40-odd people on it began to weep. ‘‘We cried for Christina and ourselves,’’ Sahar said. The bus took a sharp right toward the Khazir River that marked an edge of the land ISIS had seized. Several minutes later, the driver stopped and ordered everyone off.

Led by a shepherd who had traveled this path with his flock, the sick and elderly descended and began to walk to the Khazir River. The journey took 12 hours.

The second bus — the one filled with the young and healthy — headed north, too. But instead of turning east, it turned west, toward Mosul. Among its captives was Diyaa. Rana wasn’t with him. She had been bundled into a third vehicle, a new four-wheel drive, along with an 18-year-old girl named Rita, who’d come to Qaraqosh to help her elderly father flee.

The women were driven to Mosul, where, the next day, Rana’s captor called her brothers. ‘‘If you come near her, I’ll blow the house up. I’m wearing a suicide vest,’’ he said. Then he passed the phone to Rana, who whispered, in Syriac, the story of what happened to her. Her brothers were afraid to ask any questions lest her answers make trouble for her. She said, ‘‘I’m taking care of a 3-year-old named Christina.’’

Trods disse utvetydige beskrivelser er Griswolds ellers glimrende artikel fuld af de standardbesværgelser der tynger de ledende medier. “No one has suffered more at the hands of ISIS than fellow Muslims”, hedder det pludselig, med henvisning til at flere muslimer end kristne dør af andre muslimer. Samme logik kunne man sige om tyskerne og jøderne under nazismen. Skønt interessant med Ellemannske observationer så er den relevante pointe at kristne næsten pr automatik dør i mødet med den ankomne muslimske hær, forrådt af sin muslimske nabo. Den kristne kan, som andre ikke-muslimske minoriteter, ikke komme uden om den direkte forfølgelse. Og den forfølgelse er islam.

Det sidste man hører om Rita er at hun “had been given as a slave to a powerful member of ISIS; Christina was given to a family to be raised as a Muslim”.

Planned Parenthood i ny video

Agurketid, Diverse, Etik, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 28, 2015 at 9:57 pm

Forleden henviste jeg til en video, der viser det amerikanske Planned Parenthood - “a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services” - sælge aborterede, øhm, entiteter, som løsdele. Ligegyldigheden over hvad der er eller bliver til et menneske er til at tage og føle på og jeg henviste til David French i National Review, der optimistisk spekulerede i om venstrefløjen er ved at overspille sine kort “…they’re being mean. Americans don’t like mean”. Endnu en video er blevet udgivet om Planned Parenthoods absurditeter og ikke for at trække Monokultur ind i en abortdebat, så vil vi alligevel følge den så længe den er saftig. Townhall skriver

For a brief morbid summary, in the past two weeks the Center for Medical Progress has released findings from their 3-year investigation into Planned Parenthood. Their first undercover video contained footage of a doctor describing the potential of selling aborted babies’ body parts for profit, all while enjoying her lunch. The second video featured an abortionist discussing prices for the organ harvesting, while callously joking she ‘wants a Lamborghini.’

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards tried (unsuccessfully) to defend her organization on ABC’s “This Week.” Now, however, she will be forced to do damage control once again.

In its third released video, the CMP interviews an ex-procurement technician from the company StemExpress. Holly O’Donnell describes how she thought she was just tasked with drawing blood when she applied for the company, yet soon realized, to her horror, they wanted her to procure tissue from aborted fetuses. Then the harvesting began:

Og nu ser det ud til at Planned Parenthood er blevet hacket, skriver Breitbart

One of the hackers, identified only as E, told Daily Dot the attack was motivated by Planned Parenthood’s politics.

“Trying to mold an atrocious monstrosity into socially acceptable behaviors is repulsive,” E said. “Obviously what [Planned Parenthood] does is a very ominous practice. It’ll be interesting to see what surfaces when [Planned Parenthood] is stripped naked and exposed to the public.”

The hacking group allegedly plans to release internal emails to the public.

Life News er ikke så overraskede over Planned Parenthoods skødesløse omgang med livet og citerer fra grundlæggeren Margaret Sangers skriverier

Planned Parenthood hides behind a false memory of Sanger, and why, despite her extraordinarily prolific writing career, one rarely sees her quoted by Planned Parenthood leaders and apologists.

The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.” Here, Sanger argues that, because the conditions of large families tend to involve poverty and illness, it is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a chance to pose difficulties to its family.

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

A woman’s duty: To look the whole world in the face with a go-to-hell look in the eyes… to speak and act in defiance of convention.

The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1

[The most penetrating thinkers] are coming to see that a qualitative factor as opposed to a quantitative one is of primary importance in dealing with the great masses of humanity.

Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Here, Margaret Sanger speaks on her eugenic philosophy – that only the types of “quality” people she and her peers viewed as worthy of life should be allowed to live.

Such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots.

The Need for Birth Control in America (quoted by Angela Franks.)

Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.

Venstrefløjen har aldrig haft problemer med at gøre sige herre over den selektion, der plejede at være naturens. Og det er især den manglende problematisering Monokultur finder lettere problematisk.

Kampagnekrig?

Politiet kan ikke klare mere siger de. 60 timers arbejdsuger får de udkørte betjente til at runde et sygefravær på hele 18%. Årsagen er dels at man har nedlagt stillinger svarende til en hel politikreds, dels det ekstra arbejde de mange muslimske terrorsager giver, skriver TV2. Og også flyvevåbnets F-16 mekanikere i Irak “er trætte, hårdt belastede og har ikke tid til familien, mens sygefraværet er rekordhøjt” skriver Jyllands-Posten. Det er de menige medlemmer af statens voldsmonopol, der mærker trykket mellem dalende finansiering og stigende islamicering.

Eneste modsvar fra politikerne ser ud til at være Inger Støjbergs anti-folkevandringskampagne. Store ord frem for konkrete tiltag har længe været Støjbergs unikke talent. Det var egentlig Dansk Folkeparti der havde foreslået en sådan kampagne, men da havde Venstre afvist det fordi det “hører ikke hjemme i Danmark at lave videoer, der skal skræmme flygtninge fra at søge til landet”. Uønskede mennesker hører nu endnu mindre hjemme skulle man mene. I stedet skulle man “kommunikerer på en mere informativ måde”. Og det er synd, for information om Danmark er en magnet.

Mens Støjberg gør alt for at holde sine udmeldinger tomme for handling skulle man tro at aviserne Information og Jyllands-Posten allerede havde indledt deres egne oplysning-til-flygtninge-kampagner. Jyllands-Posten opreklamerede således alternativet til Danmark på den synkende side af sundet og kunne fortælle hvorledes alting der er meget bedre da man som flygtning i Sverige får lov til at køre gratis med offentlige transport. Argumentet fra forvalterne af det svenske folks indkomst er at det er “en kæmpe integrationssatsning, hvor vi håber, at folks mobilitet vil stige, så de kan få flere kontakter i samfundet.” Det bliver i alt fald gratis for parallelsamfundene at knytte deres ghettoer bedre sammen.

Information går den anden vej og havde endnu en venlig artikel om Venligboernes succes med at ønske de kommende parallelsamfund velkomne. Her fortæller de kommende økonomiske udgifter - der bliver en meget mere eksotisk underklasse end det eksisterende ‘white trash’ - at venligheden i Danmark overstiger al forventning. Selv om venligboerne er en helt igennem kunstig størrelse opfundet til en intern dansk debat, så afspejler den desværre virkeligheden bedst. Venligheden i Danmark overstiger enhver forventning.

Nyt fra Mordor

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions.” skriver Seumas Milne for Guardian og konkluderer at stormagterne ikke kan nedkæmpe “Isis and its monstrosities” fordi det er “the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since”. Og han leverer et glimrende eksempel på de vestlige lederes fortvivlede ragen rundt i det muslimske ælte

On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead withthe trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition. That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime. Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much.

At sende de små fisk i fængsel for den linje politikerne selv har lagt kender vi godt herhjemme. Men Milnes observationer er glimrende, de vestlige ledere ved ikke hvem, der er ven eller fjende og jo mere de engagerer os i de muslimske morrads jo mere selvmodsigende og kontraproduktivt bliver det. Men jeg citerer ikke fra Guardians selvretfærdige klummeisters paranoia uden at komme med en bemærkning. Halvdelen af de 14 års krig mod terror, som Bush startede er blevet ført af Barak Hussein Obama, men han nævnes ikke med et ord. I stedet bruges variationer af ‘amerikanerne’. Og det til trods for at hvor Bush måske kunne være naiv i hvad USA kunne opnå af mirakler i barberernes verden, så agerer Obama på baggrund af allerede opnåede erfaringer. Det er ikke blot denne “rat line” af våben fra Libyen til Syrien, der er sket på Obamas vagt

A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria. Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”. Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria. That doesn’t mean the US created Isis, of course, though some of its Gulf allies certainly played a role in it – as the US vice-president, Joe Biden, acknowledged last year. But there was no al-Qaida in Iraq until the US and Britain invaded. And the US has certainly exploited the existence of Isis against other forces in the region as part of a wider drive to maintain western control.

Jack Kerwick konstaterer på Frontpage Magazine at på “Barack Hussein Obama’s watch, Islamic militancy has only increased in scope and intensity”. Daily Mail skriver at Tyrkiet er på randen af en borgerkrig efter voldsomme gadekampe er brudt ud mellem politi, PKK-aktivister og venstrefløjsgrupper. Men ikke nok med det, så er NATO-landet og EU-aspiranten også på vej ind i en direkte krig imod ISIS. Uzay Bulut skriver på Gatestone Institute

Turkey is evidently unsettled by the rapprochement the PKK seems to be establishing with the U.S. and Europe. Possibly alarmed by the PKK’s victories against ISIS, as well as its strengthening international standing, Ankara, in addition to targeting ISIS positions in Syria, has been bombing the PKK positions in the Qandil mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan, where the PKK headquarters are located. As expected, many Turkish media outlets were more enthusiastic about the Turkish air force’s bombing the Kurdish militia than about bombing ISIS. “The camps of the PKK,” they excitedly reported, “have been covered with fire.” It appears as if Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is using ISIS as a pretext to attack the PKK. Ankara just announced that its air base at Incirlik will soon be open to coalition forces, presumably to fight ISIS, but the moment Turkey started bombing, it targeted Kurdish positions. Those attacks not only open a new era of death and destruction, but also bring an end to all possibilities of resolving Turkey’s Kurdish issue non-violently. (…) Sadly, Turkey has preferred not to form a “Turkish-Kurdish alliance” to destroy ISIS. First, Turkey has opened its borders to ISIS, enabling the growth of the terrorist group. And now, at the first opportunity, it is bombing the Kurds again. According to this strategy, “peace” will be possible only when Kurds submit to Turkish supremacism and abandon their goal of being an equal nation. In the meantime, Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkish minister of foreign affairs, said that the Incirlik air base in Turkey has not yet been opened for use by the U.S. and other coalition forces, but that it will be opened in the upcoming period.

Så Bush udløste kaoset, Obama enablede ISIS, mens folk som Uffe Ellemann Jensen presser på for at få Tyrkiet med i EU. Man siges at have de ledere man har fortjent. Hvad har vi dog gjort?

Abort

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, USA, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Et ufødt.. undskyld, et menneske-foster har indtil 12. uge ingen værdi i sig selv og man kan få det fjernet som en nedgroet tånegl. Men sælges det i løsdele bliver det en helt anden sag. Fra Youtube

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”

“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”

Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).

Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”

The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”

Planned Parenthood Dr. Anne Davis fra Physicians for Reproductive Health forsvarede ifølge katolske Church Militant nonchalant salget af forster-dele med at det sponserede videnskaben og videnskaben var godt ipso ergo ogger. Men støtten til trods udtrykte Planned Parenthood alligevel ængstelse for nye og mere explicitte afsløringer, ifølge Life News

Planned Parenthood thinks CPM has video of at least two of its conferences as well as PP staff dissecting babies for organs, expressing a preference for black babies, sniffing – if not taking – the bait on large kickbacks for baby parts, admitting (which has already happened twice) to illegally manipulating abortions to retrieve intact organs and body parts, and much, much, much more about which it has no idea.

Det er absurditeter som disse, der får National Reviews David French til at tro at venstrefløjen er ved at overspille sine kort

The Social Justice Warriors forgot that most Americans just don’t like mean people. And in one two-week span of American life, millions of SJWs helpfully and unmistakably labeled themselves with their rainbow profile pictures, then proceeded to act like hectoring, condescending, arrogant scolds — loudly and publicly, day after day. They were mean. They mocked Christians, celebrated the plight of a Christian baker’s family as it faced financial ruin for refusing to facilitate a gay wedding, and kept pointing at the Supreme Court and the White House as if they represented some sort of cosmic scoreboard — as if the only response for conservatives was to take their ball, slink away, and go home.

I’m reminded of the way that the first great wave of political correctness was brushed back. A generation ago, colleges were passing speech codes and proudly calling them speech codes. This was the time when the term “politically correct” was considered a compliment — when the hostility to conservative speech was so profound that conservatives were shouted down in class, sometimes even by the professors themselves. For a while, the angry Left was ascendant. Many students believed — at least for a time — that extreme measures were necessary for the sake of the marginalized and historically oppressed. But then, people just kept being mean. Over time, moderates — including more moderate liberals — rejected the extremes, and by the late 1990s colleges became almost unrecognizably civil. Even today, with a new wave of repression surging across campuses, they still haven’t reached the depths of the Bad Old Days.

A generation ago, the social-justice Left tried its best to silence the pro-life movement — to treat the very utterance of pro-life sentiment as an affront against women. They failed, utterly. Pro-life speech is still of course constitutionally protected, and the pro-life movement is arguably stronger than it’s ever been. Indeed, it’s just received an incalculable boost through videos that show Planned Parenthood being Planned Parenthood. Unable to learn, the social-justice Left is going back to the old, failed playbook of the 1990s — trying its best to silence cultural conservatives on marriage – and in so doing they are once again showing their totalitarian colors. Once again, they’re being mean. Americans don’t like mean.

I 6. uge færdigudvikler et ufødt.. undskyld, menneskefos…, undskyld embryoet sit eget, eller nogen andres om man vil, lille funktionsdygtige hjerte.

Rollemodellen flytter med

“Mentalt set var jeg global fra fødslen” fortæller Sherin Khankan - “barn af en finskkristen mor og en syriskmuslimsk far” - Politikens Christoffer Emil Bruun. Khankan er “optaget af ’hjertets metodologi’” og mener ‘kulturmødet kræver “en sensitivitet for, hvad der er vigtigt for andre”

Danskerne kender intet til islams filosofiske og eksistentielle potentiale. Der er så meget ignorance, fordi vi kun kender den traditionelle, dogmatiske fortolkning. Vi vil gerne genoplive den filosofiske tradition«.

Khankan huskes måske af nogle for, som også Mona Sheik, at komme på kant med sit parti Radikale Venstre, da hun ikke ville tage afstand fra Sharia. Det var dengang Søren Bald udlagde Radikale Venstres forståelse af Folkestyre med ordene “vi anerkender faktisk kun menneskerettigheder som udgangspunkt for lovgivning“. Både Sharia og Folkets mening er vranglære for Det Store Korrektiv, men af alle onder må man vælge det mindste og det skøntes bedre at fylde landet op med en befolkning der i det mindste heller ikke anderkendte Folkets meninger.

Daniel Greenfield skriver i Frontpage Magazine om terroristen Abdulazeez - der skød og dræbte 5 marinesoldater i Chattanooga - om hans familie og folk som dem

No matter how “ordinary” their sons seemed, how many parties they attended and, how many of their American friends saw nothing wrong with them, they were always ticking time bombs waiting for the right confluence of theology and anger to explode.

The people of Boston and Chattanooga unknowingly lived with these ticking time bombs. Ticking time bombs just like them are all around us; Muslim families with scowling fathers, timid mothers, a history of failed businesses, growing resentment toward the infidel, sons who drift through life despite good schools and numerous opportunities until they find their focus around the black flag of the Jihad.

Abdulazeez kom fra en dysfunktionel familie. Den var dysfunktionel på grund af ham, der var vokset op med troen på islam. Hans far havde fået ophold i USA, selvom FBI var lorne ved at han gav pengedonationer til Hamas.

Ammar DooshBilal Al-IssaSubhi Hassan, Mahmoud HamdanTariq MahmoodMuna Mohamoud Abdullahi og en anonymiseret er nogle af de tidligere rollemodeller i Danmark, der er blevet islamister eller bandemedlemmer, man har kunnet læse om på Uriasposten de seneste par år. Det er blevet en hel subgenre at se politikere, medier og offentlige myndigheder føre sig frem ved disse Gustav Vasa slagnumre - og ingen erfaring drage til næste gang. Telegraph skriver om en sådan rollemodel

A young jihadist who once dreamed of becoming Britain’s first Asian Prime Minister before later joining Isil has reportedly been killed in a drone strike.

Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, was one of the first Britons to appear in an Isil propaganda video last year, alongside two other British fanatics.

Other fighters with the terror group reported on Twitter that he had been killed in a strike in Raqqa, possibly on the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 terror attacks on London.

(…)

The former Catholic school student, who as a teenager said he wanted to become Britain’s first Asian prime minister, featured alongside two other Britons in a recruitment propaganda video for the terror group released in June 2014.

(…)

Khan grew up in a terraced house in the Welsh capital in the same road as Abdul Miah, one of the ringleaders of a foiled plot to unleash a Mumbai-style terror attack on London.

Former schoolmates at Cantonian High School in Cardiff remembered him as a talented scholar who had moderate views and mixed well with people of all backgrounds.

But in 2013 they noticed his interest in religion appeared to intensify and he successfully applied to study at the Madinah University in Saudi Arabia - although he did not take up the position.

Since then Khan used Twitter to post a series of gruesome pictures and sickening boasts, writing in July 2014: “Executed many prisoners yesterday.”

A few days later he tweeted: “Probably saw the longest decapitation ever. And we made sure the knife was sharp.”

Herunder ses han med Labours Ed Balls

engelsk-minister-ed-balls-m-kommende-jihadist

At rollemodeller er nødvendigt at have og fremhæve fortæller i sig selv noget om dybden af problemet. De mange ‘rollemodelsudfald’ er en funktion af problemet og det burde ikke komme bag på nogen. Men det gør det tilsyneladende. Om politikerne er dumme, onde eller i alment vildrede kan man blive usikker på, men noget aner de engelske politikere jo nok, siden de ifølge Daily Mail barsler med en “secret plan for the mass deployment of armed troops on the streets of Britain in the wake of a major terrorist attack”

More than 5,000 heavily armed soldiers would be sent to inner cities if Islamic State or other fanatics launched multiple attacks on British soil – an unprecedented military response to terrorism.

The plan, codenamed Operation Temperer, would see troops guard key targets alongside armed police officers, providing ‘protective security’ against further attacks while counter-terror experts and MI5 officers hunted down the plotters.

Men måske handler om at beskytte muslimer mod backlash, kommenterede en ven bedrøvet. Selv om der eksisterer reelle rollemodeller (som Naser Khader, der jo stod bag Khankans, Sheiks og Radikales sharia penibiliteter) overstiger de tikkende bomber så langt den kritiske masse, ikke blot for, hvad der er udholdeligt, men også det ødelæggende. Jo flere muslimer der kommer, jo flere terrorister med og uden rollemodel på cv’et. Ja, og så er muslimer blot anti-folkelige i al almindelighed.

Den Grønne Prins

Historien om Mosab Hassan Yousef findes som dokumentar. Mosab Hassan Yousef trådte med stenkast mod jøder under den første intifada allerede som barn ind i palæstinensernes kamp mod Israel. Han er blevet arresteret mange gange, er søn af højtstående Hamas leder Sheikh Hassan Yousef og var han fra 1997 til 2007 spion for det israelske efterretningsvæsen Shin Bet.

Shin Bet considered him its most valuable source within the Hamas leadership: the information Yousef supplied prevented dozens of suicide attacks and assassinations of Israelis, exposed numerous Hamas cells,[1] and assisted Israel in hunting down many militants, including the incarceration of his own father, a Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef.[4] In March 2010, he published his autobiography titled Son of Hamas.[5]

In 1999, Yousef converted to Christianity, and in 2007 moved to the United States.[2] His request for political asylum in the United States was granted pending a routine background check on June 30, 2010

Sidste år fortalte Yousef Irish Times

“If we blame Hamas, we need also to blame the ideology that inspires them. If we fight Hamas or any radicals or fundamentalist groups, we need to understand that we are fighting their ideology. Islam is their foundation. If we’re not aware of this, we increase the chance that terror will win over peace.

“Islamic ideology is an aggressive and dangerous ideology, inspired by Muhammad, the founder of Islam. It’s very clear from Islamic texts and from the Qur’an that it is a violent ideology. People who say that it is peaceful, they have no clue. It’s a sick religion, born in a sick man’s mind.”

Hvis man kan leve med at den er beskåret, så man ikke kan læse de hebræiske undertekster, er her en lidt grynet udgave af The Green Prince

Grænser

Bloomberg skriver at grænsehegn er ved at blive dagens orden i Mellemøsten, som staterne forsøger at sikre sig imod terror

As they confront the rising threat of modern jihadist violence, many of the nations most at risk are retreating behind one of the oldest forms of defense.

Tunisia and Turkey are the latest to invest in border barriers, both announcing the plans in the immediate aftermath of attacks on civilian targets. A fence and watchtowers will guard Tunisia’s border with Libya, where the militants who killed foreign tourists on a Tunisian beach are said to have been trained. Turkey said late Wednesday it will fortify the border with Syria after a suicide bomb in a nearby town.

From Morocco to Saudi Arabia, boundaries are being fortified at a rate not seen since the months following the Sept. 11 attacks.

grc3a6nsehegn-i-mellemc3b8sten

Men, advarer eksperterne, fysiske grænsedragninger er ikke løsningen

“Of the Middle East’s most-famed physical defenses, the majority failed. Jerusalem’s ancient walls did little to halt a succession of conquerors, and Byzantine Constantinople’s elaborate fortifications didn’t thwart the Ottomans.

Though modern barriers may curb trafficking and illicit crossings in the short term, they almost never deliver prolonged security without cross-frontier cooperation.

“Israel’s barriers have worked well for them so far,” said Brent Sterling, author of “Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?” and a professor at Georgetown University. Long-term, though, they remove the incentive to try and reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians, he said.”

Fysiske grænsedragninger virker altså ikke fordi de bliver overløbet af en overlegen fjende. Når de så ikke bliver overløbet af en overlegen fjende er det dem der forhindrer fred. Alligevel er Mellemøsten ikke alene om at sætte grænser, skriver Gatestone Institute

Bulgaria has built a 33-km (21-mile), three-meter-high (10-foot) barbed wire fence along its border with its southeastern neighbor Turkey in an effort to limit the influx of migrants from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The Interior Ministry has also deployed more than one thousand police officers to patrol the Turkish border.

Greece has erected a 10.5-km, four-meter-high barbed-wire fence along part of its border with Turkey. The Greek wall is said to be responsible for diverting migration routes toward neighboring Bulgaria and, consequently, for construction of the wall there.

Spain has fortified fences in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla as record numbers of migrants are jumping over the barriers from neighboring Morocco. Border police registered more than 19,000 attempts to jump the fence at Melilla in 2014, up 350% on 2013, according to the Interior Ministry. Nearly 7,500 migrants successfully entered Ceuta and Melilla in 2014, including 3,305 from Syria.

The UK is setting up more than two miles of nine-foot-high security fencing at the Channel Tunnel port of Calais in northern France, in an attempt to stop thousands of illegal migrants breaking into trucks bound for the UK. Currently, more than 3,000 migrants are camped in and around Calais hoping to make it to Britain. More than 39,000 would-be illegal immigrants were prevented from crossing the Channel in the 12 months prior to April, more than double the previous year.

EU member states are implementing other emergency measures to halt the flow of immigration.

Austria has stopped processing asylum claims as of June 13, in an effort to make the country “less attractive” for migrants relative to other EU countries. According to Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner, Vienna was “stopping the Austrian asylum express,” whereby applications are processed within an average period of four months, faster than in any other EU country. Asylum requests for Austria rose nearly 180% in the first five months of 2015 to 20,620, and were on track to reach 70,000 by the end of the year.

Denmark on July 1 announced that it would slash benefits for asylum seekers to bring down the number of refugees coming to the country. It recently emerged that three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later.

France and Italy have sparred over who is responsible for hundreds of African migrants stranded at Ventimiglia on the France-Italy border after French police refused to let them in. France accused Italy of failing to respect the so-called Dublin Regulation, a law that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first European country they reach. Italian officials argued that the migrants see Italy as only a transit country.

Hungary on June 23 suspended its adherence to the Dublin Regulation, which requires Hungary to take back refugees who have travelled through the country to reach other EU countries.

Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s powerful bureaucratic arm, on May 27 announced a controversial “relocation plan” that would require EU member states to accept 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean asylum seekers from Italy and Greece over the next two years.

Eksperterne tror dog også at ISIS, med bombeangrebet mod en venstrefløjsdemonstration i Tyrkiet forleden og dagens skudvekslinger mellem ISIS og tyrkisk militær, måske forsøger at trække flere ind i det muslimske kaos. Nej, virkeligt. Snaphanen giver dette link til ISIS indre verden, Channel Four Dispatches: Escape From ISIS

Guardian har en længere fortælling fra en højtstående ISIS leder og New York Review of Books en større artikel, hvor de undrer sig over fænomenet ISIS. Ellers kan man allerede læse eller genlæse The Atlantics What ISIS Really Wants, der næsten er blevet en klassiker, som også venstrefløjen tør citere.

Monokultur kræver stop for nøgenhed

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Kunst og kultur, København, Satire, Ytringsfrihed — Drokles on July 24, 2015 at 4:40 am

Ukendte gerningsmænd har øvet hærværk på den kvindelige kunstner og fotograf, Mathilde Grafströms foto-udstilling af ‘normale’ nøgne kvinder. Københavns Kommune har støttet udstillingen, men nogle har tilsyneladende fundet den krænkende skriver og til Lokalavisen siger Grafström

“Jeg ser det som en kraftig modreaktion mod min kunst og budskabet om, at vi alle er smukke, som vi er. Dette ellers fredfyldte budskab er åbenbart for provokerende for mange, der ikke kan holde ud at se på almindelige kvinders nøgne kroppe - og hvorfor? Fordi vi ikke kan rumme at indse, at mange af os har et stort selvhad og andre frustrationer. Derfor vælger en eller flere personer at reagere udadtil på en negativ og destruktiv måde ved at undgå at konfrontere de følelser og smadre mine billeder.

Svaret er ganske ligetil. Københavns Kommune må trække støtten til udstillingen, der selvfølgelig skal lukkes hvis nogen er blevet krænket - krænkelse er alt rigelig begrundelse. Og hvis disse krænkede nogen skulle gå hen og gribe til vold mod kunstneren burde kunstneren fængsles for at have krænket nogen så meget at de blev ansporet til vold. Der er ingen følelser der er finere end andre og det er vel ikke mindre fint at blive krænket over billeder af sexede kvinder end at ville beskytte en fiktiv pædofil rovmorders renomme?

Husk på at nok har vi kunstudstillings-frihed, men ikke kunstudstillings-pligt!

Billederne anbefales husarerne og kan ses HER.

Koranen i Birmingham

Akademia, BBC, England, Historie, Muslimer, Pressen, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on July 23, 2015 at 3:31 am

Der er grund til at antage er islam er en arabisk efterrationalisering. Muhammeds navn forekommer kun 4 gange i koranen. Første gang i 3. kapitel, hvor det på engelsk hedder “Muhammed is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). Men inden armene ryger i vejret hedder det senere “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). Dette lægger mening til at man har fundet en mønt i Palæstina fra 640?erne viser en figur, der holder et kors, men har navnet Muhammed.

Den tidligste kilde til Muhammeds liv stammer fra Ibn Ishaq og er skrevet i 750, mere end 120 år efter Muhammeds død. Men Ishaq arbejde eksisterer ikke og vi har kun Ibn Hishams redaktion som er kommet til 60-70 år senere. Historierne om Muhammeds liv og levned (hadith) er blevet samlet op af kæder af vidner der har fortalt hinanden historierne (isnader). Hadith er således samlinger på baggrund af isnader der anses for troværdige. Problemet er at ingen holder vand under moderne metoder.

Ifølge islamisk lære er det kalif Uthman, der i 653 samler koranen i et standardværk og får alle andre versioner destrueret. Men mønter fra Kalif Muawiya (661-680) viser Muawiya med et kors samt en halvmåne. Og Muawoyas efterfølger Kalif Yazid (680-683) er også præget på mønter med et kors. På Klippemoskeen i Jerusalem slås det fast at Muhammed har er tjener for Gud og hans profet og at Messias, Jesus søn af Maria, er Guds eneste profet.

Men nu har forskere fundet nogle meget gamle korantekster i den engelske by Birmingham, som de mener kan dateres tilbage til muslimernes grundlægger Muhammeds egen tid. Berlingske Tidende skriver

En gruppe britiske forskere har ved hjælp af nye teknologier dateret en koran til at være blandt verdens ældste, skriver CNN.

Koranen stammer fra mellem år 568 og år 645. Det blev slået fast i en Kulstof 14-undersøgelse foretaget af forskere fra Universitetet i Birmingham.

Det betyder, at de skrevne ord og bogen stammer fra den tid, hvor profeten Muhammed menes at have levet.

Man anslår generelt, at han levede mellem år 570 og år 645.

De to pergamenter, der udgør den såkaldt meget gamle koran, mener at indeholde vers 18 til 20, og det er skrevet med blæk i en gammel arabisk skrifttype ved navn hijazi.

Men selvom teksten er så gammel, minder indholdet meget om det, der står i de moderne udgaver af koranen, siger professor David Thomas.

»Det støtter vores opfattelse af, at den koran vi har nu minder ufattelig meget om koranen, som den blev skrevet i de første år af islams levetid,« siger han til CNN.

Det lægger håb til at koranen er en valid og fortællingen om Muhammed er ‘ægte’. Men Robert Spencer skriver på Jihad Watch, at “the more one looks at this curious story, the less there is to see”.

The article is riddled with academic and journalistic sloppiness. We’re told that the radiocarbon dating shows, “with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.” Very well, but does the ink date to that time as well? We are not told. Parchment was often reused in the ancient world, with the earlier text erased and written over, and so if a parchment dates from 645, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the text does.

However, it is impossible to discover any more details from this shoddy BBC presentation. The best photo of this manuscript that the BBC provides shows clear traces of another text underneath the main text. It is not clear from the photo whether that is the text from the other side bleeding through on the photograph, or even if there is any text on the other side; nor does the BBC tell us whether or not the parchment shows signs of having been a palimpsest — that is, a parchment that was used more than once for different texts. There is also some red ink in the top lines of the manuscript in the photo but not in the succeeding lines. Has the red ink faded from the other sections, or is it itself evidence of the ink fading? Or is it a later hand filling in areas that had faded away (and possibly altering the text)? The BBC doesn’t tell us, yet this is an extremely salient point. Another recently discovered and much-touted fragment of the Qur’an, now in Germany and dated from between 649 and 675, shows clear signs of alteration, raising the possibility that the Qur’anic text was altered over time. If this is a possibility also for the University of Birmingham manuscript, the BBC should tell us so. But it doesn’t.

What’s more, if the text along with the parchment really dates from between 568 and 645, it may not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. The Qur’an, according to Islamic tradition, was compiled in its definitive form in the year 653 by the caliph Uthman, who ordered all variant texts burned and the canonical version distributed to all the provinces within his domains. As I show in my book Did Muhammad Exist?, however, there are numerous reasons to doubt this story. The principal one is that if the entire Islamic world had copies of the Qur’an by the mid 650’s, why is it that not until the latter part of the seventh and early part of the eighth century do mentions of the Qur’an begin to appear? The Dome of the Rock inscriptions date from 691; they are made up of many Qur’an verses, but out of their Qur’anic order and some with notable changes in wording. Who would have dared to change the words of Allah? And the first clear reference to the Qur’an as such occurred around the year 710—eighty years after the book was supposedly completed and sixty years after it was supposedly collected and distributed. During a debate with an Arab noble, a Christian monk of the monastery of Beth Hale (of which there were two, one in northern Iraq and the other in Arabia; it is not known in which one this monk lived) cited the Qur’an by name. The monk wrote, “I think that for you, too, not all your laws and commandments are in the Qur’an which Muhammad taught you; rather there are some which he taught you from the Qur’an, and some are in surat albaqrah and in gygy and in twrh.

(…)

So if this is a fragment of the Qur’an as it now stands (and what portion of the Qur’an is it, anyway? Neither the BBC nor its quoted academics tell us), and yet it could date from as far back as 568, two years before Muhammad is supposed to have been born, it might not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. It could instead be a portion of some source that later became part of the Qur’an, as did Surat al-Baqara.

Professor David Thomas, also without telling us what exact portions of the Qur’an this manuscript contains, raises even more questions when he says: “These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.” This is a very strange statement. The BBC, and apparently the University of Birmingham, are advertising this as an ancient fragment of the Qur’an. Presumably when Thomas says that “these portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today,” he means that the larger whole of which they once formed a part was “very close” to the Qur’an. But how close is “very close”? Mainstream Muslims maintain that the Qur’anic text has undergone no alteration at all since it was first “revealed.”

Man får let følelsen, som også Spencer indikerer, at der blandt koran- og islamforskere eksisterer en, skal vi sige pro-islamisk dagsorden. At man ønsker at folk skal få en forståelse af at islams kilder er mere faste end virkeligheden tilsiger. Bent Jensen har tidligere i Jyllands-Posten undret sig over koran- og islamforskernes besynderlige forhold til deres forskningsfelt

Koranen er angiveligt Guds rene og fejlfri lære, formidlet som nævnt via englen Gabriel til Muhammed i begyndelsen af 600-tallet. Men hvorfor indeholder bogen da så mange sproglige og historiske fejl, og hvorfor er dele af teksten uforståelig? Og hvad skal moderne muslimer i det 21. århundrede stille op med de mange udsagn om drab på vantro, kvinders henvisning til en lavere samfundskategori, slavehold og andre barbariske ting? Altså hvis man ikke er eller ønsker at blive hellig kriger.

Ifølge Pressburg tyder intet på, at Muhammed har eksisteret. Han er en litterær eller mytisk konstruktion. Ja, navnet Muhammed fandtes slet ikke, da Muhammed levede. ”Muhammed” var oprindeligt ikke et navn, men en titel, der betød ”den udvalgte” eller ”lovpriste”. Og denne udvalgte og lovpriste var – hold på hat og briller – Jesus Kristus. Titlen findes på mønter og i inskriptioner, som er forsynet med et kors og fremstillet af kristne arabiske herskere. Pressburg bygger på Christoph Luxenbergs banebrydende filologiske studier. Ifølge Luxenberg (også et pseudonym) er det simpelthen grammatisk umuligt, at Muhammed var et navn. Arabisk har ligesom hebraisk kun konsonanter, og det i sig selv har givet anledning til store problemer med at forstå mange passager i Koranen. Det er Luxenbergs store fortjeneste at have forklaret flere af disse dunkle eller uforståelige passager. Luxenberg mener, at Koranens kernestykke er en assyrisk kristen tekst, skrevet med arabisk skrift, men på aramæisk, som i sin tid var et udbredt kultursprog i Mellemøsten. Den MHMD (MuHaMeD), der omtales, betyder altså Guds lovpriste udsending, Jesus Kristus. Først flere hundrede år efter Muhammeds angivelige eksistens blev de fire konsonanter misforstået og gjort til navnet Muhammed.

Bogen har et særligt budskab til de hellige muslimske krigere, som tror, at de kommer i Paradis og dér bliver forsynet med 72 evigt unge, barmfagre jomfruer. Der er tale om en alvorlig misforståelse på grund af en fejllæsning; ”martyrerne” får i virkeligheden kun stillet vindruer og frugtsaft i udsigt. De unge drenge, som også ifølge traditionen skulle stå til rådighed for de himmelfarne, viser sig at være kølige frugter. Jomfruerne og drengene er til dels et resultat af oversætternes egen fantasi og forhåbninger.

Pressburg har som motto og ledestjerne for sin bog videnskabsteoretikeren Karl Poppers maksime: »Vi kan ikke bevise sandheden. Men vi kan bevise usandheden og dermed tilnærme os sandheden.« Alle forsøg på at bevise personen Muhammeds eksistens har været forgæves. Der findes ikke et eneste stik- og håndfast vidnesbyrd, der bekræfter den, ikke et eneste spor efter denne mand. Den såkaldte Klippemoské i Jerusalem fra slutningen af 600-tallet er ifølge muslimske myter bygget over det sted, hvor Muhammed red til himmels på en hest. Men der er i virkeligheden tale om en kristen helligdom – det viser hele dens ottekantede syrisk-byzantinske arkitektur, men også den 240 meter lange indskrift, der pryder dens indre.

Klippehelligdommen blev bygget af den kristne arabiske hersker Abd al-Malik på det sted, hvor den israelske kong Salomons tempel havde stået, og hvor Kristus forventedes at ville komme igen. Indskriften udtrykker derfor en kristen trosbekendelse. Først senere blev den kristne kirke omdannet til en muslimsk helligdom – og i allernyeste tid gjort til en moské.

Er legen snart slut for EUs elite?

“Det er bare noget, de leger” hedder det i Altingets artikel “Europas politiske talentfabrik“. Rannvá Clemensen er studerende på linjen Internationale Forhold og Diplomati på Europakollegiet i Brügge og legen er en øvelse i hvordan Europas kommende politiske elite skal respondere på et Boko Haram angreb, hvor EU-borgere bliver taget som gidsler.

”Det behøver ikke at føles ægte, for at jeg kan gå op i det. Man går ind og kæmper for sin position og giver sig kun, når man kan leve med det,” siger hun.

Og al leg er en forberedelse på virkeligheden, den virkelighed den politiske elite skubber på for at realisere. Den franske præsident Hollande vil have en egentlig EU regering, skriver TV2, der skal have “et eget budget og parlament, som skal sikre den demokratiske kontrol” fordi Europas problemer er en ‘mangel’ på EU. Rannvá Clementsen er altså en del af europas kommende elite, der bliver skolet fra en ung alder i, hvorledes EU skal regeres, håndteres og administreres.

Sammen med over 300 nogenlunde jævnaldrende studerende er hun i gang med en etårig mastergrad ved Europakollegiet. Når de ikke er på skolen, bor de sammen i huse rundtom i middelalderbyen. I hvert hus arbejder en ‘husmor’, som blandt andet sørger for morgenmad til de studerende. Resten af deres måltider spiser de, undtagen om søndagen, sammen i kollegiets kantine.

Den hverdag giver et stærkt sammenhold blandt de studerende, og tiden på skolen udgør for mange også starten på at få opbygget et professionelt netværk.

Rektoren for kollegiet, den tyske Jörg Monar er slået over “at eleverne danner en følelse af samhørighed over de ni måneder, som jeg ikke er stødt ind i på andre institutioner“. Når jeg siger han er tysker, så er det måske lidt fornærmende, for den følelse af sammenhørighed hans skole skaber. For, som man også kan læse, kommer Rannvá Clementsen “egentlig fra Færøerne. I Brügge er hun dansker. Men først og fremmest er hun europæer.” Sådan, Europas kommende elite har ikke et nationalt tilhørsforhold og sørger ikke for deres egen mad. Til gengæld har de altså et stærkt internt sammenhold.

Eller måske er det ikke Europas kommende elite vi ser, måske ser vi EUs dødskamp. Det mener i hvert fald Breitbarts Gerald Warner, der ser EU i en uløselig indre kamp mellem to venstrefløjsfraktioner der mener sig berettigede til en overflodslivsstil uden at skulle stå til regnskab for de uregerlige vælgere

There is nothing “modern” or free-market about the EU. It is an old-fashioned cartel whose roots lie in the Confederation of the Rhine and Bonaparte’s Continental System. Like those precedents, it is a political project with dirigiste economic objectives bolted on – most notoriously the unworkable euro currency. It aspired to extinguish national and popular will across Europe and enslave the continent to the delusional aspirations of a selfish and bureaucratic elite. With the complicity of the media, for decades it contrived to brainwash electorates into accepting its mendacious claims. Now, that is all over.

Across Europe, over the past week, there has been a wave of revulsion against the EU, its tyrannical diktats, its contempt for the will of electorates, its economic incompetence and its transparent lies. Suddenly, all the hype, the jargon and the pretence have been stripped away. The evil empire’s lost credibility can never be recovered. We are living in a new climate where any politician who attempts to comply with Brussels will forfeit domestic acceptance. The U-turn by Alexis Tsipras, now attempting to railroad through a democratic parliament a “bailout” package harsher than that rejected by 62 per cent of the Greek electorate just ten days ago has destroyed the last vestige of credibility of the political class.

When even “revolutionary” politicians with a massive mandate to resist Brussels roll over before the EU juggernaut – now more accurately to be described as a rickety Heath Robinson contraption – the days of the political class, as currently constituted, are numbered. And it is in this crisis situation for the discredited EU and its Toytown currency that a referendum on continuing British membership is impending.

Now is the time for Eurosceptics to press home their advantage.

(…)

The EU is 64 years old and it is showing its age. It was the product of panicky post-War reaction to a recent frightening experience, when the German guns menaced England from Calais. What menaces us from Calais today is a more successful invasion by feral aliens sponsored by the EU. We must get out and that view is rapidly becoming a majority rather than a minority opinion.

“[L]okummet brænder stadig i Grækenland” skriver Mikael Jalving i Jyllands-Posten, efter at have læst “en illustrativ og informativ foto- og tekstreportage fra Lesbos

Hvad der engang – dvs. indtil for ganske nylig – var et ferieparadis, som mange skandinaver har besøgt siden militærjuntaens fald for 40 år siden, er i dag et forstadie i, hvad der venter hele Vesteuropa, hvis EU fortsætte sin kurs mod multikulturel destruktion og grænseløst kaos.

Tusindvis af migranter sejler, driver i land, efterlader sig en pøl af affald, vandrer hen over øen i stegende hede for at blive huset under mildest talt primitive forhold i en interimistisk indrettet flygtningelejr, hvor de klager over forholdene og påberåber sig universelle menneskerettigheder, mens de lokale ser, at deres ø, eksistensgrundlag og liv forandres hurtigere, end selv den mest misantropiske pessimist kunne have profeteret for bare et år siden. I januar måned 2015 kom der ifølge officielle tal ca. 1.700 flygtninge til Grækenland. I februar kom der 3.000, i marts 8.000, i april 14.000, I maj 19.000 og fra første juni til 3. juli kom der 34.000.

(…)

Det er her, humanismen er gjort til statsreligion, det er her, de forgyldte menneskerettigheder hyldes mest, det er her, der er flest røde sjæle med hipsterskæg og lilla ble, som vil redde alverden op til et liv i velfærdsstatens varme. Bortset fra, at velfærdsstater qua deres natur må være lukkede. Ellers går de under en skønne dag. Åbne grænser, åbne kasser? For how long, my dear?

(…)

Det går rigtigt stærkt på Lesbos og andre græske øer, som ligger i første række ud til Tyrkiet, hvor myndighederne glæder sig over at kunne sende syrere, pakistanere, palæstinensere, afghanere og mange andre nationaliteter videre til Europa, hvis regeringer og Union har sat sig for at være vært for den største exodus siden bibelske tider. Tyrkiet er en mellemstation, en rejseleder, vel at mærke det Tyrkiet, som mange liberale og socialdemokratiske politikere og medier i Europa drømmer om at kunne indlemme i Den Europæiske Union, der vokser dag for dag – og synker tilsvarende. Vesteuropa risikerer på længere sigt at lide samme skæbne som Sverige ved at have indledt en kolossal demografisk revolution – eller hvad den svensk-iranske kommentator Nima Gholam Ali Pour benævner en kreativ revolution: ”Ud med det gamle, ind med det nye”. Der har dannet sig forskellige etniske og religiøse identiteter, men svensk national identitet er gået tabt. Om udviklingen fortsætter, vil Malmø om få år være en by, hvor etniske svenskere udgør en minoritet.

Men det er ikke kun demografisk revolution. Det er også en politisk revolution, sådan som Gade Jensen peger på. Menneskerettighedsindustrien, assisteret af FN og EU, smadrer ganske simpelt forbindelsen mellem fællesskab, velstand og fordeling. I stedet tilbydes der gratis buffet – lige indtil der ikke længere er nogen buffet tilbage. Det tager formentlig en rum tid – eftersom de europæiske nationalstater er rige, dynamiske og rimeligt velfungerende. Men når den tid er gået, så skal I bare se løjer.

(…)

Hvad mainstream ikke forstår, er, at migrationen fortsætter, netop fordi der er en union, som udvander ansvaret. Unionen er ikke årsagen, men anledningen til og betingelsen for, at de sydeuropæiske lande kan vælge at sende problemet videre og med tiden få indført EU-kvoter, sådan at endnu flere migranter vil søge til kontinentet. Unionen fungerer med andre ord som en velfærdsstat på vej mod sit kollaps, bare på kontinentalt niveau – uden at have noget militær eller nogen plan, når og hvis migrationen slår fejl.

EU’s snarlige flygtningekvoter udgør en parallel til optagelsen af Grækenland i møntunionen. Ingen ved, hvad man gør, når og hvis regeringer og migranter opfører sig uhensigtsmæssigt. Unionen aner ikke, hvad den skal stille op i tilfælde af destabilitet og smitsom adfærd – bortset fra at give folk flere penge.

Jalving og Warner har ret, Hollande tager fejl. EUs problemer skyldes EU og mere EU vil kun accelerere problemerne. I Ungarn bygger man et hegn langs den sydlige grænse for at dæmme op for folkevandringen og Telegraph skriver at et flertal i europas befolkning støtter den løsning. “Det er folket der er problemet”, som Tøger Seidenfaden sagde. Herunder angiveligt tyske turister, der prutter med senegalesiske gadesælgere

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

Atomaftalen med Iran er måske ikke en garanti for fred i vor tid, men måske i stedet “Fred i vor tid!”. I hvert fald ser den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry ud til at have fået betænkeligheder ved at Irans indgroede had til Den Store Satan USA, der skal DØ! sammen med Israel oma. ikke forsvundetReuters skriver

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

Mere hos Memri. Bruce Thorntorn i Frontpage Magazine at atomatalen med Iran er en katastrofe

We also know who bears the responsibility for this fiasco––Barack Obama. Historically ignorant and terminally narcissistic, Obama has all the superstitions and delusions of the progressive elite. And one of the most persistent and hoary of those beliefs is the fetish of diplomacy as a means to resolve disputes without force.

We must remember that Obama pointedly ran on the promise to “reinvigorate” American diplomacy. This trope was in fact a way to run against George Bush, whom the Dems and the media had caricatured as a “cowboy” with an itchy trigger finger, a gunslinger scornful of diplomacy and multilateralism. That charge was a lie––Bush wasted several months on diplomacy in an unsuccessful attempt to get the U.N.’s sanction for the war, even though the U.S. Congress had approved it, Hussein was in gross violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and the U.N. already has passed 17 Security Council resolutions, all of which Hussein had violated.

Yet the narrative that Bush had “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war,” as then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put it, lived on. For the progressives committed to crypto-pacifism and to the belief that America is a guilty aggressor, the story was too politically useful. Obama, one of the most programmatic progressives in the Senate, embodied all those superstitions. As senator he continually criticized the war in Iraq, scorned the ultimately successful “surge” of troops in 2007 as a “reckless escalation” and a “mistake,” and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008.

As a presidential candidate, his whole foreign policy was predicated on his being the “anti-Bush” who would “reinvigorate diplomacy” and initiate “engagement” with all our enemies in order to defuse conflict and create peace. As president, Obama has been true to his word. He has apologized, groveled, bowed to potentates, “reset” relations with our rivals, shaken hands with thugs, and now talked Iran into being a nuclear power. As for “peace,” it is nowhere to be found as violence and atrocities multiply from Ukraine to Yemen, Tunisia to Afghanistan.

(…)

The belief that words alone can transcend this eternal truth of human nature––a belief deeply engrained in the mentality of our leaders and foreign policy establishment–– led to the disaster of World War II, and will despite this lesson of history lead to a lesser, but still dangerous, disaster.

But there is yet another factor in this debacle that must be acknowledged: the tendency of democracies to privilege short-term comfort over long-term threats. In democracies the use of force must have the assent of the voters, who in the U.S. every 2 years hold leaders accountable at the ballot box. Setbacks, mistakes, atrocities, casualties, and all the other unfortunately eternal contingencies of mass violence try the patience of voters, and citizen control of the military gives them a means of expressing their impatience or anger. As de Tocqueville recognized more than 150 years ago, “The people are more apt to feel than to reason; and if their present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten.” That pretty much sums up America’s response so far to Obama’s agreement.

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

(…)

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

Men det går fra farce til skandale. Obama underløber kongressen for at få sin aftale istand

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

“The astonishing thing, which no one has pointed out”, skriver den ægyptiske Imad Al-Din Adib, der sammenligner Iran-aftalen med Chamberlains München-aftale “is that even if Iran complies to the letter with the 85 sections of the agreement, the agreement itself, once its 10-year duration is up, allows [Iran] to produce a nuclear bomb in the 11th year.”

Hvor tids jødehad

Så salonfähig er antisemitismen at BBC oversætter palæstinensisk jødehad til had mod Israel. Og hvad der ligger bag at direktøren for det Sergei Ustinov, grundlægger og direktør for Museet for jødisk historie i Rusland, er blevet skud i Moskva, hvor der bor 2 mill. muslimer, kan man indtil videre kun gisne om. Douglas Murray skrev i Gatestone Institute

In London, we have had Israeli orchestras, theatre companies and even string quartets howled down by mobs during performances, and Israeli-performed shows cancelled because the venues hosting them just do not want the bother. Last year, the Tricycle Theatre in London refused to proceed with a festival of “Jewish” culture because a tiny proportion of the festival’s funding was coming from the Israeli embassy in London.

The campaign is obviously organized. The same names crop up again and again. Little, if any, rigour is paid to whether the signatories of such letters even do what they say do, or have opinions worthy of any note. Beneath the barely-built veneer of “professionals objecting to something in their own profession,” is just the same tiny number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish obsessives. A sprinkling of “as a Jew” Jews, like Margolyes, help, of course. But the aim is clear. These people, step by step, want to make every expression of Israeli and Jewish cultural life subject to their idea of how a nation under constant threat of terrorist bombardment should behave. They denounce Israel as a militaristic society and then attempt to outlaw every non-militaristic cultural and artistic expression from that society.

It is the bigotry of our time. And if unchecked, it will lead in the same direction as it historically has done.

City Journal skriver om Tuvia Tenenboms bog Catch The Jew!, en satirisk udhængning af antisemistismen bag den vestlige palæstinenserindstri. Tennembom er tysk jøde, der optræder, som naiv tysk journalist i Gaza, Israel og Vestbredden får han en del sandheder at vide om de vestlige donorer og ngo’ers anti-israelske engagement

In his tour d’horizon of the Palestinian territories, Tenenbom uncovers the fact that there are almost 300 pro-Palestinian foreign NGOs working (that is, agitating) in the West Bank and another hundred in Gaza, most financed by German taxpayers. Moreover, aid to the Palestinians by the European Union and the United Nations is the highest, per capita, in the world. Which might explain why, as Tenenbom keeps noticing all over the West Bank, so many Palestinian officials and activists are driving Mercedes.

(…)

Relying on his unconventional journalistic techniques, Tenenbom elicits a string of unguarded comments from the activists who work so diligently to keep the narrative of Palestinian suffering in the news. He opens a unique window allowing us to see how the victims’ game works in Palestine. For example, the popular Palestinian leader Jibril Rajoub—with the help of willing European collaborators—succeeds in staging a series of morality plays that perpetuate the big lie about his people’s historical innocence and unique suffering. Rajoub lets Tobi the German in on one such full-scale operatic production in the West Bank village of Bi’lin. With compliant Western reporters told where and when to gather, Palestinian youths comes on stage and, on cue, begin stoning Israeli soldiers. The soldiers ignore the “youths,” but the stones get larger and they eventually respond. The self-righteous Western reporters now have their “story” of Israeli violence for the day. Moreover, the event is filmed for a documentary by an Israeli leftist financed by (what else?) a German NGO. Tenenbom knows something about theater, and his satirical account of this staged episode is as priceless as it is depressing.

Tenenbom’s method produces pure satiric gold, as when the wife of an American rabbi who heads a one-man organization called “Rabbis for Human Rights” (financed by a European NGO) can’t contain herself and admits to Tenenbom: “You can’t change him. Being a human rights activist in our time is to be a persona, not a philosophy; it’s a fad, it’s a fashion. A human rights activist does not look for facts or logic; it’s about a certain dress code, ‘cool’ clothing, about language, diction, expressions and certain manners. No facts will persuade him.”

Another highlight of the book is Tenenbom’s visit—arranged by a European NGO—to an inverted Potemkin village of Bedouin encampments in the Negev. In the original historical version of the Potemkin tall tale, the Russian Czar created a few model villages with false facades to convince Western visitors that all was well within the empire. In the twenty-first century version of the tale perfected by anti-Israel NGOs, the technique is to make Palestinian and Bedouin villages look as awful as possible on the outside even when they are relatively well off on the inside. After all, it can never be admitted that the Palestinian people, despite their suffering at the hands of the Jews, constitute the most prosperous Arab community (with the exception of the oil-rich Gulf monarchies) in the Middle East.

To Catch A Jew bliver næppe læst i den arabiske verden heller. Alene fordi arabere hader at læse.

ISIS er en islamisk bevægelse, derfor lader den sig ikke bekæmpe med fornægtelse og venstrehåndsbombninger

Daily Mail har en udmærket artikel om den enorme indsats imod Islamisk Stat der synes aldeles nytteløs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154680/The-astonishing-FIFTY-FOUR-countries-groups-battling-ISIS-haven-t-crushed-already.html#ixzz3fWyanjo9

An international coalition of over 30 countries and at least a dozen more rebel and terror factions have been unable to prevent the rapid growth of ISIS.

The terror group has expanded its territory, recruited ‘thousands’ of new foreign fighters and brought new jihadi organisations under its wing since an international ‘task force’ to ‘eliminate’ ISIS in October 2014.

At least 42 nations have either carried out airstrikes on ISIS, trained troops and Middle-Eastern tribesman to do battle against it or given weapons to those who are.

Meanwhile, at least a dozen rival Islamist groups are waging bloody war with ISIS on the ground - and for the hearts and minds of Muslims online.

Despite their collective hatred for the Islamic State, these disparate groups have failed to combat and destroy ISIS because their agendas conflict and they are not attacking the heart of the so-called caliphate, a counter-terrorism expert has told MailOnline.

ISIS commands 31,000 loyal fighters according to the United States - up from 16,000 last Autumn - while Kurdish forces put that number at closer to 200,000. And around eight million are thought to live under its barbaric rule.

This inspired more than 60 nations to commit to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS which was formed to ‘eliminate’ ISIS, even though some of these - including Austria, Sweden and Ireland - are simply providing humanitarian support to the millions made homeless by the insurgents.

As part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led coalition whose purpose is to eliminate ISIS, 13 different countries have executed airstrikes on Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

The United States and five of its Arab allies - Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - launched the intense campaign of airstrikes and cruise-missile attacks against ISIS in September 2014.

Since then, America has been responsible for around 60 per cent of the 16,000 bombings on Iraq and Syria carried out since.

Den irakiske hær har kæmpet med den siden 2006, dengang den kun var en Islamisk Stat Irak og Syrien begyndte i 2011. Mange muslimske lande kæmper internt med deres egne muslimske entusiaster, der begynder at sværge troskab til Islamisk Stat, blandt andet Boko Haram, der trodsede Michelle Obama og aldrig gav de kidnappede småpiger tilbage, har bragt flere afrikanske lande ind i kampen. Alligevel trives Kalifatet Islamisk Stat som aldrig før. Terroreksperten, som Daily Mail har talt med, mener at problemet er at alle, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat har forskellige interesser. Men det hjerte han mente skulle angribes defineres ikke.

Vi får dog at vide at en lokal terrorgruppe producerer sin egen propaganda, der skal imødegå Islamisk Stats “poisonous narrative” “and mistaken understanding of Islam“. Og den amerikanske præsident Barak Obama er helt enig i det synspunkt og “says no amount of firepower will bring down the terror group who prey on ‘vulnerable’ Muslims around the world, adding: ‘Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and compelling vision.’“. Man skulle tro at alle alternativer til Islamisk Stats svælgen i grusomheder var bedre ideer, at det IKKE at hugge hovedet at handlende der holder fredagsåbent klart var en bedre ide og en større vision end et gøre det. Men Islamisk Stats giftige narrativ, dårlige ideer, misforståeede islam og og uattraktive vision er åbenbart mere end almindeligt konkurencedygtigt og antallet af svage muslimer er svimlende og stigende.

Igår spekulerede jeg via kloge indlæg om Euroens og EUs krise kunne demaskere den herskende politiske klasses manglende realitetssans førend islams grusomheder blev ubenægtbare ud fra en Clintonsk ‘it’s the economyu, stupid’ tankegange. Douglas Murray forklarer i Gatestone Institute den stigende kløft mellem, det som politikere siger om ‘fredens religion og det som befolkningerne ved. For selvfølgelig kan man bekæmpe Islamisk Stat militært, skriver Murray i sit opgør med Obamas ide om attraktive ideer. Det var således man knuste nazismen. Islamisk stat kan ikke rekruttere nye krigere, hvis den knuses og den vil ikke virke attraktiv, hvis den får bøllebank og lider nederlag. Men der er noget andet om kalifatets ideer, som Obama og de andre vestlige ledere samt medierne vånder sig over at se i øjnene, nemlig at Islamisk Stat er islamisk, dens ideer er islamisk lære og det virker tiltrækkende på muslimer, der er opflasket med at islams ideer er de bedste uanset hvad virkeligheden ellers fortæller

While the Nazis tried to hide their worst crimes from the world, the followers of ISIS repeatedly record and distribute video footage of theirs. Between free and open democratic societies, and a society which beheads women for witchcraft, throws suspected gays off buildings, beheads other Muslims and Christians, burns people alive, and does us the favour of video-recording these atrocities and sending them round the globe for us, you would have thought that there would be no moral competition. But there is. And that is not because ISIS has “better ideas, a more attractive and more compelling vision,” but because its appeal comes from a specific ideological-religious worldview that we cannot hope to defeat if we refuse to understand it.

That is why David Cameron’s interjection was so important. The strategy Barack Obama and he seem to be hoping will work in persuading the general public that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the same tactic they are adopting in the hope of persuading young Muslims not to join ISIS. Their tactic is to try to deny something that Muslims and non-Muslims can easily see and find out for themselves: that ISIS has a lot to do with Islam — the worst possible version, obviously, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but a version of Islam nevertheless.

ISIS can destroy its own credibility among advocates of human rights and liberal democracy. The question is how you destroy its credibility among people who want to be very Islamic, and think ISIS is their way of being so. Understand their claims and their appeal, and work out a way to undermine those, and ISIS will prove defeatable not only on the battlefield but in the field of ideas as well. But refuse to acknowledge what drives them, or from where they claim to get their legitimacy, and the problem will only have just started.

Murray gør sig for mange håb om at islam kan reddes fra sig selv og det gør Jürgen Todenhoffer også i dette interview i BBCs Hardtalk. Men, hvis man kan abstrahere fra udtryk som “so-called Islamic State movement” og hæfte sig ved hans beskrivelse af den muslimske bevægelse for man et anderledes forstemmen realistisk billede af, hvorfor Obama har ret når han siger at vi kommer til at kæmpe med disse problemer i mange, mange år

The so-called Islamic State movement has very publicly murdered western journalists and aid workers who entered its territory. As a result, IS-held areas of Syria and Iraq have been off-limits to western reporters for the past year. Except for the guest today.

Last December Jürgen Todenhöfer spent ten days inside the self-styled IS caliphate. He emerged unscathed with a remarkable story - what more can he tell us about the jihadists and what can we conclude about his own motivations?

Vil Euro-krisen være første skridt til EUs opløsning?

Demografi, Diverse, EU, Euro, Forår?, Frankrig, Historie, Ukraine, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on July 12, 2015 at 12:11 pm

Den største trussel mod Danmark, ja mod hele Vesteuropa, er indvandringen af fortrinsvis muslimer. Løsningen er simpel; luk grænserne og eventuel iværksætning af repatrieringsprogrammer. Det lyder måske mere højreradikalt end det, men vores forrige statsminister, socialdemokraten Helle Thorning Schmidt har foreslået det samme. Men Vesten befinder sig mentalt mellem Middelfart og Hønborg, skiftevist ægget af idealer og angst for deres konsekvenser tøver Europa med nødvendighedens erkendelse. Man trækker hellere psedoproblemer som menneskeskabte klimaforandringer eller tomme drømme om en fælles valuta ned foran øjnene og ser ikke at løsne sig for snærende konventioner med de besnærende drømme om at gøre bureaukratstanden og dens snakkende eliter historien moralsk overlegenhed. Den fremragende Mikael Jalving beskriver EU, som en Trojansk Hest i Europa

Når sandheden skal frem, og det fortjener den på en fredag, rummer den trojanske hest i Bruxelles ikke grækere, men EU’s grever og baroner. Det er deres EU, der truer Europa, så ilde er vi stedt, og millioner af europæere vil mærke det på egen krop, pengepung og ufrihed i årene, der kommer.

Europa er i hastig forandring, demografisk, politisk, økonomisk. Alligevel tromler EU derudad, som om der var fred og ingen farer. En plan B findes tilsyneladende ikke, kun mere af det samme, stadig mere desperat.

I det administrative centrum af EU har man intet alternativ til fortsat ”integration”. Hvorfor? Fordi Den Europæiske Union ånder, føler og tænker i ”integration”, dvs. gradvis opløsning af nationalstaternes suverænitet og legitimitet, herunder flere overnationale skatter og overførsler, mere føderal kontrol og tankepoliti.

At det er den økonomiske union, der kræver reformer af grækernes skatte- og velfærdssystem, camouflerer den politiske unions indre drift mod et stadig tættere ”samarbejde”, dvs. stadig mere afhængighed, ufrihed og kommandoøkonomi. Men samtidig er det de pekuniære problemer, der måske kan få os til at forstå de underliggende politiske og kulturelle.

(…)

EU lever af andres penge og gennem en overnational afhængighedskultur. Som en anden union, der afgik ved døden i 1991, skaber Unionen intet selv. Dens natur er parasitær. Dens ånd socialistisk. Målet er omfordeling og ”solidaritet” på et langt højere plan end det nationale, og midlet er udligning, kvoter, rettigheder, pligter og byrder hinsides de statslige. Det var paradoksalt nok den tyske ekskommunist Gregor Gysi, der profetisk forstod, hvor det bar henad, da han advarede tyskerne mod møntunionen tilbage i 1998.

Men ingen lyttede. Euro var den nye dollar, det nye guld, den knitrende fremtid. Desuden pressede franskmændene på for at få D-marken afskaffet. Hvad de politiske føderalister drømte om, var, at møntunionen kunne blive en erstatning for den manglende sammenhængskraft i den politiske union. Det er den drøm, der har forvandlet sig til et mareridt.

Så mens vi er nogle der frygter for hvor mange lig, der skal på gaden førend samfundet får taget et opgør med sin frygt for at italesætte og følgeligt reagere på islam og den afrikanske folkevandring, så kan man måske fæstne et ikke ringe håb til at erkendelsen vil komme tidligere når den politiske elites drømme brister i mødet med realiteterne. Den politiske klasse mister sin definerende magt og politiske kapital, dens forståelse af verden fasificeres med Euroens fald. Bankdirektør for Saxo Bank Lars Seier Christensen tror at der er en udløbstid på Euroen fortæller han til TV2

Det er alt for giftigt for euroen som en fælles valuta. Ryger grækerne ud, kan det ryste hele eurozonen og få de andre dominobrikker i Europa til at vælte, siger han til TV 2:

- Bruxelles, Berlin og Paris tør ikke gøre alvor af truslerne om at smide Grækenland ud af Euroen. Det er for farligt og vil skabe uacceptable risici for en dominoeffekt og en umiddelbar gældskrise over store dele af eurozonen. Jeg kan tage fejl, da signalet og en manglende reaktion vil være så grotesk ydmygende for EU, men jeg tror ikke på, at Merkel og Hollande tør accellerere euroens uundgåelige superkrise, der venter ude i fremtiden, lyder det fra Lars Seier Christensen.

Derfor er det ikke kun Grækenlands fremtid, der er på spil for de europæiske ledere og Den Europæiske Centralbank, der nu skal drøfte muligheden for at gå grækerne i møde. Det er de nødt til, selvom den græske befolkning nu har afvist at acceptere de reformkrav, som der ellers er blevet præsenteret som et ultimatum.

Det, der er problemet med Grækenland, er nemlig ikke, at landet er fuldstændig unikt - landet står bare lidt længere ud på vippen, end de andre lande i Europa, der kæmper med deres enorme gæld, og de er i øjeblikket alle på vej i samme retning som Grækenland, vurderer Lars Seier Christensen.

Grækenland er med andre ord ikke det eneste land, der vakler i eurozonen; Det er hele eurosamarbejdet, der er på spil, og eurozonen har lige så meget at tabe ved at smide Grækenland ud, som grækerne har, lyder det fra Saxo Bank-direktøren.

(…)

- Nu har jeg aldrig været stor fan af euroen. Det er vist ikke en hemmelighed. Det er en helvedesmaskine, som har ødelagt rigtig meget i de forskellige europæiske økonomier, men der er også investeret utrolige mængder af politisk kapital, så der vil gå længe, før euroen definitivt knækker over i flere andre valutaområder, siger Lars Seier Christensen til TV 2.

- Men at det sker en eller anden dag, er jeg ikke i tvivl om. Systemet og hele konstruktionen er ikke holdbar, og det er Grækenland i og for sig et udmærket eksempel på - og ikke det eneste, slutter han.

Som danske vælgere har fået at vide af Ja-fløjen ved hver en folkeafstemning, så skal EU hele tiden bevæge sig fremad, som en cykel, der ikke skal vælte. Men nu er den nået til stilstand, skriver Gerald Warner i Breitbart og kalder EU et såret dyr.

This follows a long-established pattern: once the momentum of a relentlessly expansionary empire such as Brussels is halted, it does not remain stationary – it goes into reverse. When Greece departs from the euro currency, what will happen? Will some other basket-case state be shoe-horned in to replace it? Hardly – not because the madmen in Brussels are not demented enough to try it, but because the German electorate would not stand for it.

So, the Greeks’ referendum decision (kudos, once again, to the highly professional opinion pollsters who were only 22 per cent out in their forecasts this time) means that the contraction of the EU has begun. That is its real, historic significance. That is why screams of anguish are being emitted by the fanatical expansionists in Brussels who, without a twinge of remorse, provoked a bloody war in the Ukraine, in a cack-handed attempt to increase the number of their vassal states.

(…)

That is an attitude increasingly engulfing European youth and it will eventually affect British youngsters too. The best way forward for Eurosceptics is to strain every nerve to convert younger voters to this view before polling day in the referendum. Remember the old canard that all UKIP supporters were elderly men in blazers? Apparently last May there were almost four million of them.

In mainland Europe the Eurosceptic profile is increasingly youthful. By itself, the cult of “yoof” is inane, but harnessing youthful idealism and enthusiasm to the cause of recovering our national sovereignty makes solid sense. Farage is right, too, to espouse a positive Eurosceptic agenda: let’s free ourselves to trade with the rest of the world, let’s escape from a cage controlled by elderly men in grey suits, let’s unshackle our economy from the self-interested red tape of Brussels regulation.

Of course, the Eurosceptic youth vote in countries such as Greece and Spain is unfortunately attached to looney-left parties such as Syriza and Podemos, but that is no reason for supposing it cannot mature with the voters themselves, who may be persuaded to ditch Marxist along with Europhile delusions and finally embrace a sensible course.

Youth is by instinct anti-authoritarian and authoritarianism does not come more repellent than the Brussels bureaucracy. Young people see, behind the photocalls, the large cars, the saluting sentries, the pompous jargon and the solemn press conferences, the underlying reality: this is a bunch of buffoons who have created an unworkable project that is collapsing around them and they haven’t a clue what to do. They tried to suppress economic reality by ideological imperative and now the house of cards is crashing down.

Merkel, the overrated hausfrau, Hollande, the socialist spendthrift, self-pitying Juncker, loud-mouth Schulz and all the other clowns are the incompetents who have broken Europe, while flooding it with countless millions of hostile aliens destroying its culture. It is time for Britain to get out from under this doomed structure before we are crushed by the wreckage.

For EUs stiftere var EU et fredens projekt. De var stålsatte på at sikre deres befolkninger mod en gentagelse/fortsættelse. Men de tog fejl, 1. og 2. Verdenskrig handlede ikke om for meget nationalisme, men om imperie-drømme, om at underlægge sig andre nationer. Kohls og Mitterands generation var de sidste statsmænd der havde oplevet krigens følger og var de sidste statsmænd, der ville sætte både deres nationers selvstændighed over styr som deres egne politiske karrierer for, hvad de mente var den nødvendige politik. Nutidens politikere vil sætte alt over styr, så længe det gavner deres karriere. Hidtil har det betydet at sætte nationen over styr til fordel for det lukrative EU, men stemning vil vende og når den gør vil der ikke være nogen nogen, der vil kæmpe EUs sag til døden for ingen tror på EU mere end det kan gavne dem personligt. Det er en grov og uretfærdig sammenligning, men EU falder fra hindanden som Albanien, en dag stopper folk blot med at tage det alvorligt.

Hvor om alting er, Fjordman mener ikke at EU kan reformeres

I have had my doubts about this for years. The EU system is so fundamentally flawed and corrupt that it is doubtful whether it can be reformed in any meaningful way. Corruption and a chronic lack of accountability are not flaws in the system; they are there by design. The EU oligarchs have proven themselves very adept at exploiting crises to further more federal integration. This even goes for problems they have themselves created.

The entire EU system since the days of Jean Monnet has been built on creating a European superstate through deceiving the European public by presenting it as merely an elaborate free trade zone. Lies and deceit have become part of the structural DNA of the European Union.

The EU has essentially bribed the political class throughout much of the European continent, and bought their personal loyalty and support. If they become a part of the EU system, they receive well paid jobs. Moreover, they don’t have to answer to the average citizen for what they do, or how they use or abuse their power. It is easy to see why some people find this combination alluring.

The EU elites have a strong vested interest in keeping up a system that provides them with money, power and prestige. For this reason, any attempts at “reform” are likely to be purely cosmetic and designed to appease the masses. The EU has become a bureaucratic colossus. Just like all bureaucratic systems, it has a natural tendency to try to expand its reach.

I don’t see any solution to this other than to formally and publicly abolish all of the institutions of the European Union. For something like this to happen, the EU would have to face massive and sustained popular pressure throughout the continent. This is unlikely to happen without a major and prolonged economic crisis that destroys the credibility and legitimacy of the EU in the eyes of the general public. We may be heading for just such an event in the years to come.

It is not fair to blame the EU for all of Europe’s ills. For instance, low birth rates are currently found throughout the continent, also in European nations that are not members of the EU. However, the EU makes some existing problems even worse. It also adds new ones of its own making.

If we look at the big picture and the geopolitical situation, Europe as a whole faces major challenges in the coming decades. Two of the biggest ones are the escalating Jihad of radical Islam, and large-scale illegal immigration due to the population explosion in parts of the global South. The EU does not adequately address any of these threats. On the contrary, it makes them worse. The EU continues promoting Muslim mass immigration to Europe. The organization also seeks to force all of its member states to accept illegal immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world. By embracing Islamization and the gradual displacement of native Europeans, the EU has arguably become the anti-European Union.

Future historians will debate whether the EU was a good idea gone bad, or whether it was a bad idea from the very beginning. However, in my opinion, there can be no doubt that the EU as it exists today is a failure. The organization does not solve Europe’s most important challenges, and it adds new problems of its own making.

I cannot predict exactly how or when the EU will finally fall apart, but I strongly suspect that a major economic meltdown will play a major part in its collapse.

Og jeg må give ham helt ret. EU bygger på en drøm om at kunne forebygge konflikter med handel og harmonisering. EU er en forfængelig drøm om at stoppe historien.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress