Pressens kamp for Hillay

Forleden henviste jeg til eksempler på hvorledes mediernes dækning af det amerikanske præsidentvalg var skævvredet, således at Donald Trump fik en uretfærdig hård medfart,hvor citater blev fordrejet, historier opdigtet og problemer overdrevet. Howard Kurtz fortæller på Fox News, at fordrejninger for nogle journalister er en bevidst handling, et kald nærmest

But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. Liberal investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald recently told Slate that “the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president”—and, given his views, he has no problem with that.

Now comes Jim Rutenberg, in his first season as media columnist for theNew York Times. He’s a good reporter and I give him credit for trying to openly grapple with this bizarre situation.

But Rutenberg is, in my view, trying to defend the indefensible:

“If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.”

Yet normal standards, says Rutenberg, may not apply.

By “closer to being oppositional,” he means openly siding against Trump and thereby helping Clinton. And that’s precisely the kind of thing that erodes our already damaged credibility. If a reporter believes Trump is a threat to America, he or she should go into the opinion business, or quit the media world and work against him. You can’t maintain the fig leaf of neutral reporting and favor one side.

Rutenberg acknowledges that “balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.”

For at konpensere for denne ubalance dækker medierne derfor Hillary Clintons kampagne ligeså skævvredet men, for variationens skyld uden tvivl, til fordel for Hallarys kandidatur. Således bliver åbenlyse problemer og historier om korruption og kriminalitet negligeret eller ignoreret. Som at faderen til den muslimske terrorist, der myrdede 49 mennesker i Orlando, får lov at mænge sig på demokraternes valgmøder, helt tæt på Hillary Clinton.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-11-kl-063211

Kunne en far til en massemorder blive set tæt på Trump, ved et af hans valgmøder uden at det havde skabt overskrifter? Og det er ikke de eneste overskrifter, de amerikanske vælgere er gået glip af. Wayne Allyn Root har samlet nogle stykker, af hvilke her er et uddrag, for Breitbart

Let me list all the many shocking stories NBC News should be mentioning, if not covering extensively. Instead they won’t even admit these news stories and scandals exist.

  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and execution of an Iranian scientist helping the U.S. His name was prominently mentioned in Hillary’s hacked emails that undoubtedly ended up in the hands of our enemies. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails may have led to the discovery and murder of Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens and those 3 American heroes at Benghazi. Hillary’s hacked emails gave up his location.
  • It appears I’m not the only one to think so. Hillary is now being sued by the parents of the dead Benghazi heroes for this gross negligence. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News. They did plenty of reporting about the one Muslim gold star father, but virtually zero coverage of the parents of dead Benghazi heroes. Donald had harsh words. Hillary lied to the parents’ faces with their children’s caskets lying nearby. Her actions may have led to their deaths. Still NBC says nothing.
  • Hillary’s hacked emails show the Clinton Foundation is one big extortion racket that involved “pay for play.” Those who donated to the infamous Clinton Foundation immediately got high-level access and contracts from Hillary’s State Department. Folks this is treason – pure and simple. Yet we hear not a word from NBC News.

Can you even imagine if Donald Trump served in a presidential cabinet and sold out his access and government contracts in return for donations to his foundation? It would be the biggest news story in America. The FBI would be leading him away in handcuffs right now.

Det er alt sammen underordnet at The Donald ikke kan lide spædbørn.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

omvendt

Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

Balfour erklæringen er alle katastrofers moder

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

(…)

These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

Kommer det nye USA nu?

Man kunne tro at Donald Trump var arketypen, eller en lidt vulgær variant, af den amerikanske drøm, men i New Yorker kunne jeg læse at Obama mente at Trump er uamerikansk. Kristeligt Dagblad assisterede min bedagede forståelse det amerikanske og præsenterede “det nye USA der hepper på Hillary Clinton

Demokraternes præsidentkandidat skal samle et kludetæppe af mindretal for at vinde over Donald Trumps hvide vælgere ved USA’s valg i november

Det Demokratiske Partis nye ansigt er folk som Zak Davidson fra Columbia, Ohio. En hvid, veluddannet ateist på bare 22 år.

Det er 64-årige Norma Davenport, der har levet hele sit liv i et traditionelt afroamerikansk arbejderkvarter i Philadelphia.

Det er den homoseksuelle flådeveteran Ron Helms og hans jødiske veninde Joanne Goodwin fra Florida.

Og det er Sue Langley fra Virginia, der for 34 år siden immigrerede fra Thailand til USA med sine forældre.

Og det nye USA ser sådan her ud

At råbe “Intifada! Intifada!” og “Death to the USA!” mens man brænder israelske flag er i sandhed langt fra, hvad den negerlignende Steven W Trasher kalder “a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate” af Trump støtter. Trasher er bange for at de rabiate, svindende, vrede hvide vælgere er nok til at bringe Trump til Det Hvide Hus til november fordi Hillary ikke kan begejstre, “just watch Hillary Clinton being booed at her own party convention”. Den slags intern dissens får man ikke indtrykket af i medierne, især ikke de danske, men Townhall forsøgte at opgøre omfanget af udvandringen fra konventet, da Hillary blev nomineret

The level of media bias in reporting the Democratic National Convention is as high as I have ever seen outside of North Korea and the old Soviet bloc. The GOP convention was declared a disaster many times during its four-day run, but the DNC, reeling from revelations of the rigging of the primary contests, is getting far more benign descriptors, as the media avert their eyes from unpleasant realities.

Among the most unpleasant realities for Democrats and the media is the anger of Bernie supporters now that it is clear the campaign into which they threw their hearts and souls was fixed all along. Somehow, that anger must be minimized, trivialized, and eventually extinguished if Donald Trump is to be stopped. And in the eyes of the media, that threat is so overwhelming that no restraints whatsoever are justified in making the case against him as propagandists rather than honest observers and reporters.

So the focus last night at the DNC was “history being made,” (no Y chromosomes at the top of the ticket) and a soft focus look at Hillary’s record as a left wing activist using children as a front for demanding leftist policies and selected aspects of her personal relationship with Bill Clinton, the most popular living Democrat (if you ask Democrats).

As propaganda, it was skillful.

Godt dog at ISIS overhovedet blev nævnt for ifølge Breitbart blev det eller jihad eller terror slet ikke nævnt på konventets første dag. Til gengæld blev andendagen åbnet med af islamisten Sherman Jackson, der mener, om ikke sit, så hvad islam lærer ham om del af det nye USA der er homosexuelle, jøder etc. Man skal helst ikke nævne islam, ifølge Obama, ikke blot fordi det er “offensive to Muslims”, men “the kinds of rhetoric that we’ve heard too often, from Mr. Trump and others, is ultimately helping do ISIL’s work for us”. Omvendt med Hillary “She will stand up to ISIS”, som Martin O’Malley (ham er der spræl i) uambitiøst erklærede. Men at stå op imod ISIS er alt man tør på et demokratisk konvent, hvor al tale om faktisk at bekæmpe kalifatet fører til protester fra salen.

Jeg er ikke helt klar over hvorfor befollkningsudskiftning er blevet så salonfähig i medierne. Men det nye USA kommer måske til at vente four more years, da Trump fører i meningsmålingerne og Assange truer med at der er mere slim i røret.

Med jøden er det anderledes

Muslimer i Europa råber Allahu Akbar mens de stikker folk ned på gaden, kører dem ihjel eller hugger deres hoveder af. De har muslimer gjort længe i Israel

Men inden muslimernes opførsel blev så spektakulær at den ikke længere kunne skjules, skosede europærere Israel for ikke at være eftergivende nok. Når muslimer myrdede jøder var der jo nok en god grund til det - det er der jo altid. Mosaic Magazine mindede forleden om et af de mange europæiske hyklerier når det drejer sig om Israel

Yesterday, when an Afghan migrant and Islamic State devotee in Germany began attacking commuters on a busy train, he was quickly shot and killed by security. Similarly, the horrific truck attack last week in Nice was only brought to an end when the French police shot and killed Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, who also appears to have been linked with ISIS.

When comparable knife attacks and car rammings have happened in Israel, security forces there acted similarly. Of course, on many occasions, Israel’s border police and army have managed to shoot and merely disable assailants. But when that has not been possible, Palestinian attackers have been shot and killed in an effort to save the lives of Israeli civilians in immediate harm’s way. It would seem morally obvious that sometimes this is what has to be done to bring a terror assault to the swiftest possible conclusion.

Yet Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom had an objection to Israelis defending themselves in this way. In January, when allegations were made in the Swedish parliament that Israel was perpetrating “extrajudicial executions” of Palestinian attackers, Wallstrom gave credence to these allegations. “It is vital that there is a thorough, credible investigation into these deaths in order to clarify and bring about possible accountability,” she said. By the same standard, we should now expect to hear Sweden’s foreign ministry call upon their French and German neighbors to undertake investigations into the circumstances under which the German train and Nice attackers were killed.

Wallstrom’s talk of bringing about “possible accountability” is especially galling. The notion that it is members of Israel’s security forces who should be interrogated and punished for acting to neutralize a terror threat is an unspeakable moral inversion. But, of course, in the event that there was serious reason to believe that wrongdoing had been committed by a member of the security services then that would be a legal matter.

Der er nu ikke noget der ikke er for ‘galling’ for EU, som Evelyn Gordon skriver

Following last week’s terror attack in Nice, a Belgian Jewish organization issued a highly unusual statement charging that, had European media not spent months “ignoring” Palestinian terror against Israel out of “political correctness,” the idea of a truck being used as a weapon wouldn’t have come as such a shock. But it now turns out that European officials did something much worse than merely ignoring Palestinian attacks: They issued a 39-page report, signed by almost every EU country, blaming these attacks on “the occupation” rather than the terrorists. The obvious corollary was that European countries had no reason to fear similar attacks and, therefore, they didn’t bother taking precautions that could have greatly reduced the casualties.

The most shocking part of the Nice attack was how high those casualties were: The truck driver managed to kill 84 people before he was stopped. By comparison, as the New York Times reported on Monday, Israel has suffered at least 32 car-ramming attacks since last October, yet all these attacks combined have killed exactly two people (shootings and stabbings are much deadlier). Granted, most involved private cars, but even attacks using buses or heavy construction vehicles never approached the scale of Nice’s casualties. The deadliest ramming attack in Israel’s history, in 2001, killed eight.

(…)

Now consider the abovementioned EU document, first reported in the EUobserver last Friday, and its implications for both those counterterrorism techniques. The document is an internal assessment of the wave of Palestinian terror that began last October, written by EU diplomats in the region and endorsed in December 2015 by all EU countries with “embassies in Jerusalem and Ramallah,” the EUobserver said.

And what did it conclude? That the attacks were due to “the Israeli occupation…  and a long-standing policy of political, economic and social marginalisation of Palestinians in Jerusalem,” to “deep frustration amongst Palestinians over the effects of the occupation, and a lack of hope that a negotiated solution can bring it to an end.” This, the report asserted, was “the heart of the matter”; factors like rampant Palestinian incitement and widespread Islamist sentiment, if they were mentioned at all, were evidently dismissed as unimportant.

The report’s first implication is obvious: If Palestinian attacks stem primarily from “the occupation,” there’s no reason to think anything similar could happen in Europe, which isn’t occupying anyone (at least in its own view; Islamists might not agree). Consequently, there’s also no need to learn from Israel’s methods of dealing with such attacks.

In contrast, had EU diplomats understood the major role played by Palestinian incitement—for instance, the endless Internet memes urging Palestinians to stab, run over and otherwise kill Jews, complete with detailed instructions on how to do so—they might have realized that similar propaganda put out by Islamic State, urging people to use similar techniques against Westerners, could have a similar effect. Had they understood the role played by Islamist sentiments—fully 89 percent of Palestinians supported a Sharia-based state in a Pew poll last year, one of the highest rates in the world—they might have realized that similar sentiments among some European Muslims posed a similar threat. And had they realized all this, the crowds in Nice might not have been left virtually unprotected.

No less telling, however, was the report’s explanation for Israel’s relatively low death toll. Rather than crediting the Israeli police for managing to stop most of the attacks quickly, before they had claimed many victims, it accused them of “excessive use of force… possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.”

If the EU’s consensus position is that shooting terrorists in mid-rampage constitutes “excessive use of force,” European policemen may understandably hesitate to do the same. In Nice, for instance, the rampage continued for two kilometers while policemen reportedly “ran 200 meters behind the truck trying to stop it”; the police caught up only when a civilian jumped into the truck’s cab and wrestled the driver, slowing him down. Yet even then, an eyewitness said, “They kept yelling at him and when he did not step out – they saw him from the window taking his gun out.” Only then did they open fire.

Det er bare anderledes med jøden. Tag denne formulering fra BBC, som fremhævet af Campaign Against Antisemitism

Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.

Før ramte terror mest jøder og blasfemikere, men nu rammer det uden at diskriminere. Hmm, måske der efterhånden er nogle europæere, der skylder Israel mere end en undskyldning.

Her er en tanke. Som muslimer fortsætter med at myrde europæere og som det politiske landskab nok (og forhåbentligvis) kommer til at ændre sig vil forståelsen for Israels problemer sandsynligvis udvikle sig i en mere solidarisk retning for den europæiske offentlighed. På Jerusalem Post kan man læse at Israels næste krig “will be far more brutal” end den seneste for 10 år siden. Hvis Israel til den tid ikke skal bekymre sig om europæernes fine fornemmelser til den tid, står Hezbollah til en giga røvfuld - just saying.

Den økumeniske dødssejler

Det er svært at følge med efterhånden. Et meme på Facebook hed “0 dage siden et muslimsk terrorangreb”. I Frankrig har en præst fået skåret halsen over af to muslimer, der angreb midt under gudstjenesten. Ud over præsten, der med sine mere end 80 år kun vikarierede for den ferierende præst, var der to nonner, hvor den enes liv endnu hænger i en tynd tråd, og to kirkegængere. Alligevel var det nok kristenpraksis til et muslimsk angreb.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-07-27-kl-045253

Eller, jeg forivrer mig måske, for selv om muslimerne skreg Allahu Akbar som de skar halsen over på den gamle mand, kender myndighederne endnu ikke deres motiv. Og mens myndighederne begynder at tjekke de to muslimers kontakt til døgnpsykiatrien eller interviewer tidligere klassekammerater om eventuel mobning eller det hele bare var et desperat råb på hjælp efter et afslag på asyl så hæfter jeg mig ved at den angrebne kirke var en del af et økumenisk projekt, hvor muslimer og kristne forsøgte at se ud over deres uenigheder (som at muslimerne burde slagte alle kristne nu eller vente til senere).

Vidste muslimerne dette? Og i så fald havde jeg forestillet mig at de hellere ville slagte den involverede imam for at besudle Allahs morderiske lære med snik-snak i selskab med kuffars. Principielt gør det jo heller ingen forskel at den slagtede præst var, hvad man kunne kalde en venligboer, der er stadig tale om terror. Og terror er, hvad der rammer alle, også kristne, selv om man ikke hører så meget om det. Fox News skriver dog, hvorledes den nye normal antager et stadigt mere muslimsk ansigt

Unfortunately, similar attacks on Christians are rarely recounted, although ISIS has made its intentions clear: “the Christian community… “will not have safety, even in your dreams, until you embrace Islam. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women….”

Certainly Islamist radicals have not ignored this proclamation, even though accounts of their successful efforts may be hard to come by.

Only a scouring of Catholic news reports exposes an ongoing litany of desecration, arson and abuse.  For example, a recent newsletter from Federation for Europa Christiana recounts (in French) the following:

“At Martigues…three successive attacks in May 2016: first the pastor extinguished a malicious fire on the altar of the church of the Madeleine. This same priest was later attacked and his eye was blackened….

“Then, at the Saint-Genest church, the same priest discovered the open tabernacle and communion wafers thrown to the ground…

“In April, 2016, all the crucifixes and crosses were shattered at the cemetery of La Chapelle-du-Bard….”

All told, 810 attacks on French Christian places of worship and Christian cemeteries took place in 2015.

Meanwhile, the National Catholic Register reported on June 6,

“In recent weeks, Catholics in France and Belgium — countries still recovering from brutal ISIS attacks — have been hit with numerous acts of violence and aggression, including fires set in churches, an assault on a priest, the desecration of a tabernacle.

“More than 100 Catholic websites… of churches and congregations were hacked by suspected Tunisian cyber-jihadists who call themselves the Fallaga Team.”

Og i Kososvo skyder muslimerne på serbere, der vil besøge resterne af deres kirker og klostre, som muslimerne har ødelagt

On Saturday, ahead of today’s holiday dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, a group of Serbs came under fire from automatic weapons as they were cleaning the grounds of the garbage and debris that local ethnic Albanians are dumping at the ruins of the desecrated temple. Nobody was injured during the incident, that has been reported to the Kosovo police.

Today, about 100 villagers and their guests from various parts of the Kosovsko Pomoravlje District, along with some citizens who had left the area as early as in the 1970s, gathered at the monastery and celebrated the day in peace, and without incidents.

“Visiting my hometown brings back beautiful childhood memories, but scenes like the desecrated grave of my former neighbor - which was done during the past year - point out to the reality and the difficult lives that people who remained are leading.” Mijomir Lalic, who now lives in the town of Smederevo, told Serbia’s state broadcaster RTS.

Nenad Kojic, a professor at the Pristina University, now relocated to Kosovska Mitrovica, said those who live in the village now “have no intention of leaving.”

“It’s all the same that they destroyed our holy places, they cannot destroy our faith and our hope,” said Kojic.

The Binac monastery, dedicated to Archangel Gabriel, is one of the oldest Serbian temples built in the 14th century. It was completely destroyed in July 1999, after the war in Kosovo and after the arrival of international forces there.

Og inden nogen skulle fristes til at påpege tonen i debatten, så går det samme vej for kristne i muslimske lande. Her en stemningsrapport fra Ægypten

Since late May, Christians in Egypt have been the victims of at least a dozen sectarian attacks, and activists and politicians say the government has done little to stop it, despite Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi’s early overtures to the Coptic community and their staunch support of him.

“It is escalating in a very short time,” said Mina Thabet, programme director for minorities and vulnerable groups with the Egyptian Commission of Rights and Freedoms.

Among the assaults was one in late May on an elderly Coptic woman in Minya, who was stripped, beaten and paraded naked because of a rumour that her son was having a relationship with a Muslim woman. Seven homes in the town were set ablaze.

Victims said the police response was late and insufficient.

Sectarian tensions heated up even more on June 30, three years to the day after the beginning of the protests that led to the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, when a Coptic priest was gunned down in Al Arish, North Sinai in an attack claimed by the IS group. The group accused the priest of “waging a war against Islam”.

As gruesome as that attack was, the majority of the incidents have not taken place in the IS stronghold in northern Sinai, but in the Governorate of Minya, which is nestled along the Nile river about 250 kilometres south of Cairo.

(…)

Hours before the priest in Al Arish was shot, the under-construction house of a Coptic man in Minya was torched by a mob who thought he was building a church – despite his having signed an affidavit in the presence of police, the mayor and the local sheikh saying the structure would be a residence and would be used for no other purpose. The four adjacent homes, which belonged to his brothers, were also burned.

The building of churches is a flashpoint for sectarian tensions in Egypt. Per capita, there are far fewer churches serving the Christian community than there are mosques serving the Muslim community, and the building of new churches is strictly restricted under Egyptian law and requires special permissions. Christians for decades have had difficulty obtaining the necessary approvals and often face fierce opposition from Muslim neighbors.

While the recent violence has been concentrated in and around Minya, other Christian strongholds in the country have suffered as well. For example, an attack occurred on July 2 in the governorate of Sohag, which is about 500km south of Cairo and also has a large Christian population, when the teenage daughter of a priest was grabbed from behind by the hair and stabbed in the neck in what appeared to be a failed attempt to slit her throat. She was rescued by a bystander and survived the attack.

Tilbage til Danmark og et kig på venligboernes økumeniske projekt. For et par år siden vågnede den iranske kommunistpige op det umulige i et ægteskab med islam, om det var jøder, israelere eller progressive. Inger Holst husker tilbage til sommeren 2014

En lys og mild sommeraften samlede en flok mennesker sig på Christiansborg Slotsplads.

En taler bød dem velkommen: »Det kræver mod at komme her, det er svært at stå sammen om fred,« sagde taleren. Her var jøder, israelere, arabere, iranere, her var københavnere af alle slags. Det var i juli 2014 under endnu en voldsom konflikt i Mellemøsten.

Taleren var Jaleh Tavakoli, en af demonstrationens arrangører.

»Begge folk har ret til fred,« sagde hun.

»Begge folk har retten til et land.«

Imens hun talte, kom nye mennesker til. De kom fra Rådhuspladsen, hvor der var demonstration for palæstinensernes ret. Men ikke for andres. Jaleh Tavakoli var en af de få, der nåede at holde sin tale. Den startede med en erindring om hylende sirener og om den angst, hun selv havde oplevet i sin barndom under krigen mellem Iran og Irak.

Imens hun talte om disse minder, begyndte politisirener at hvine. Biler kørte med hornet i bund, med flag og fuckfingre strittende ud ad de nedrullede ruder.

De fleste af dem, der deltog i angrebet, var danskere med palæstinensisk baggrund.

Men blandt dem, der truende nærmede sig, kunne Jaleh Tavakoli genkende nogle af sine gamle, etnisk danske partikammerater fra Enhedslisten.

»Er det det her, du vil, Jaleh,« spurgte en af dem.

Et halvt år senere var Tavakoli medarrangør af det debatmøde om ytringsfrihed i Krudttønden, der blev angrebet af en herboende muslim. Der findes ingen frem med muslimerne, kun stilhed før massakren. Det positive er at mens folk på venstrefløjen skulle gøre sig anstrengelser for at registrere danske jøder og deres adresser på en særlig jødeliste, der skulle bruges, den dag den nu skulle bruges til hvad man dog ellers kunne bruge sådan en liste til så har vi allerede medlemslister af diverse partier og organisationer på venstrefløjen. Ikke at vi skal bruge den til andet end hvad Anne Grethe Holmsgaard havde tænkt sig med jødelisten, det er bare rart at have - hvis nu det skulle blive aktuelt med sådan en liste med navne og addresser.

Daily Show manipulerer med virkeligheden

Jon Stewart var god til det, Trevor Noah er det ikke. Satire er svært fordi det er indhold og ikke blot en ironisk form. Men når man driver et dagligt satire-program bliver presset på at finde nok satirisk materiale oftest så stort at man alt for ofte presser det materiale man nu engang har ind i den opøvede ironiske form. Og dette bliver uhæderlighed.

Noget af det sjoveste er at udstille repræsentanter for sine idiosynkrasier så alle kan svælge i, hvor tåbelige og usammenhængende de er. Men det kræver at man finder dem. Hvis ikke man finder dem, men i stedet er så uheldig at rende ind i intelligente velovervejede mennesker lidende af en anden politisk observans end ens egen må man manipulere med sit offer. Ved det republikanske konvent faldt en medarbejder fra Breitbart over en sådan manipulation i sin skabelse

A crew from The Daily Show — which plunged in the ratings after Trevor Noah took over as host— set up outside the event and approached people as they left the party, asking them for interviews.

At 12:30 a.m., Pollak was leaving the party when The Daily Show approached. “I was on the phone anyway,” Pollak recalled, “so I ignored them, but then I saw them pulling someone aside, so I stopped to watch.” The Breitbart senior editor-at-large ended his call, and turned on his video camera.

The Daily Show didn’t like that. Their attempt to stop Pollak wasn’t funny, and included physical intimidation and a blatant disregard for the First Amendment.

“I wanted to shoot raw footage of their interview with a young, gay conservative, because I wanted to compare it to their final cut and see whether they had been fair to him,” Pollak recalled.

“I didn’t want this person to be humiliated merely for being gay and having the ‘wrong’ political views,” Pollak added.

“They told me not to film, then they told me —incorrectly — that I couldn’t film them, and then one of their reporters pushed me. Finally, they gave up, packed up their cameras and ran away.”

(…)

The actions of the thugs from The Daily Show are shocking, and they rip the lid off the real purpose off the show: political propaganda disguised as entertainment. They weren’t trying to hide their “jokes” but were trying to keep their dwindling viewership from seeing how they make the sausage.

It’s as ugly as (insert politically incorrect Leslie Jones joke here) — and it’s no laughing matter.

Men metoden er ikke ny og den er ikke opfundet at Trevor Noah. Daily Shows Jon Stewart var dygtigere end Noah, men han kunne også lyve om virkeligheden for at passe sin ironiske form og lefle for sine tilhængeres idiosynkrasier. Og Stewart er et rimeligt præcist udtryk for hvorledes en stor del af venstrefløjen ræsonnerer, undvigende virkeligheden uden at stå til regnskab, som Daniel Greenfield skrev i Frontpage Magazine

It was Bush’s victory that took a flailing cable show hosted by an irritating little standup comedian with more neurotic tics than a flea-bitten Woody Allen and turned him into the voice of liberalism. Stewart’s nervous smirk and his passive aggressive mockery became the zeitgeist of urban Democrats nervously responding to Bush’s popularity and the rise of American patriotism after September 11.

The Democratic Party was out of ideas. The politicians who would become some of Bush’s most fevered critics were still following the president’s cues. A newly serious America was confronting a world war.

Stewart’s disingenuousness, veering from ironic detachment to self-righteous hectoring, undermined real sincerity with fake sincerity. The Daily Show’s audience of hipster yuppies cheered their newfound faith in sincere cynicism while the calculated ironic distance of his comedy kept him safe from critics. Even while he attacked the media’s dishonesty, his own routine was the most dishonest of them all.

His fake news was real news, biased and spun with punch lines. It was fake news that was real and just as fake as the rest of the news. The truth was that the lie was still a lie.

What Stewart offered a party dragged down by a morose Gore and Kerry was the promise of cool. Their former figurehead had started out playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show only to decay into a bloated red-faced mess. With towers burning and wars rising, Stewart was to be their bridge to a cooler and younger 21st century that an aging Democratic Party no longer seemed able to grapple with.

Jon Stewart didn’t actually have cool, but he could offer it up inversely by way of mockery. Like a school paper’s drama critic, he might not be cool, but by railing against others, he could deny coolness to them.

(…)

What Stewart offered Democrats was an evasive viewpoint without accountability. And nothing quite appeals to the cowardly instincts of a political hack like being able to take a political position without being held accountable for it. But it was Obama who truly embraced politics without accountability, transforming every issue into a joke or referencing it back to his own biography.

While he may have come out on the stage with a unique personal story, what kept Obama competitive was his skill at refracting everything through layers of irony and self-awareness. His approach was to borrow Stewart’s own routine without any of its ambiguity. Stewart’s pretense of triangulation became Obama’s obsession with turning his radical left-wing politics into an imaginary middle ground.

Stewart and Obama had come out of a political movement trying to respond to September 11 without having the first idea how to do so. Stewart’s comedy paved the way for minimizing the threat while inflating the absurdity of those trying to fight it. It is an approach that Obama continues to embrace.

(…)

Generation X cynicism fused with millennial brand awareness to create a political monster who might not be able to lie to the people all the time, but who cynically made the existence of his lies irrelevant.

Stewart’s Daily Show had offered an antidote to the Bush era of patriotism, sincerity and decency. Its antidote was passive aggressive ridicule and political satire as sincerity. After the Bush era ended, Stewart and his fellow comedians had little left to do except take on the job of defending Obama, while occasionally critiquing him. They had become the official court jesters of the Democratic Party.

Et eksempel. Under Israels seneste krig med terror-regimet Hamas i Gazastriben latterliggjorde Stewart Israel for ikke at beskytte fjendens civilbefolkning helt lige så meget som sin egen civilbefolkning. Som David Horovitz beskrev i Times of Israel

Stewart: “Both sides are engaging in aerial bombardment, but one side appears to be bomb-better-at it. (Studio laughter at the wordplay.) Most Hamas rockets are neutralized by Israel’s Iron Dome technology, and Israeli citizens can even now download a warning app. (Cut to clip of Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer explaining how Israelis can know where and when they’re being attacked.) So Israelis seem to have a high-tech, smart-phone alert system.”

Let me see if I understand the point he’s making here: Having falsely implied that Israel is as keen on killing as Hamas is, Stewart now seems to be criticizing Israel for not being as vulnerable as Hamas would like it to be to those Hamas rockets that are sent to kill us. He seems to be bashing us for having those tech smarts. It’s a bad thing that we developed a unique, astonishing Iron Dome missile defense system, without which hundreds of us would be dead? It’s a bad thing that we developed an app to warn us that the rockets designed to kill our citizens are heading this way?

Stewart: “How are the Gazans notified? (Cut to a clip explaining that Israel carries out “a small mortar explosion” on the roof of a building that is to be bombed “which serves as an Israeli warning of an upcoming airstrike.” Back to Stewart.) “Hmmm. So the Israeli military warns Gaza residents of imminent bombing (pause for comedic effect), with a smaller warning bombing! (Laughter). An amuse-boom, if you will.” (Studio laughter, clapping, cheering.)

What’s my problem with that bit (once I’ve registered the witty play on amuse-bouche). Oh, where to start? Stewart fails to explain which buildings in Gaza are being targeted: This is not the mirror image of Hamas’s arbitrary rocket attacks on any and every Israeli target. These are Israeli airstrikes on Gaza homes where Israel says terror chiefs live, where weaponry is stored, from where rockets are fired.

Furthermore, whereas Hamas, out to kill, does not generally warn Israel of imminent rocket attacks (thus rendering every missile fired at Israel from Gaza “a crime against humanity,” according to the Palestinian Authority’s own UN representative), Israel, trying not to kill noncombatants, fires that warning mortar shell to alert civilians — even though it knows this is more than likely to lead to the terrorist fleeing. Would Stewart rather Israel not warn Gazans that, in its efforts to prevent rocket fire on its civilians, it is about to strike back?

Mark Levin luftede dengang også sin harme over Stewarts manipulerede virkelighed.

Trumps sammenhængende tale

Donald Trump fører ifølge CNN i meningsmålingerne over Hillary Clinton. Der skal tages det forbehold at Trump har fået ekstra opmærksomhed som han blev kåret til Republikanernes præsidentkandidat på der republikanske konvent. Nu er det så Hillarys tur til at højne opmærksomheden om sit kandidatur, men hun skal tage højde for en opmærksomhed der indtil videre er centreret om hvorledes Demokraterne har modarbejdet Bernie Sanders den anden kandidat til Demokraternes præsidentkandidat i en blanding af almindelig Clintonsk korruption og generel venstreorienteret antisemitisme (og så er der den almindelige dyrkelse af race-deling). Hillary har allerede ansat Demokraternes skandaleombruste partiformand til (forsat?) at lede hendes kampagne.

Og man kan håbe at Trump ender med nøglerne til Det Hvide Hus. Muligvis er han en charlatan og muligvis vil han være en katastrofe, men i forhold til alternativet, så har vi brug for en mand der kan sige sandheder. Om terror-angrebene mod Frankrig - og man kan inkludere alle europæiske lande i denne ligning - siger Trump

- Det er deres egen skyld, fordi de i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium, siger han.

Det gør ondt at læse og nogle er faldet over ham for at bebrejde ofrene. Men det er desværre sandheden. Hvis ikke man værger for sig inviterer man problemerne ind i sit land. Man kan meget vel beskylde “eliten” eller “venstrefløjen” eller “venligboerne” eller “politikerne”, men alt i alt har de europæiske nationalstater, og de er jo summen der indeholder elite, folk og fjolser, ikke taget var på sig selv. Det er tid til at se virkeligheden i øjnene.

- De er blevet kompromitteret af terrorisme. Her er, hvad jeg vil gøre: Ekstremt grundige undersøgelser. Det er et hårdt ord. Ekstreme undersøgelser. Vi skal stille hårde krav. Hvis en person ikke kan bevise det, de skal kunne bevise, kommer de ikke ind i det her land, siger Trump, der dog ikke besvarer mere uddybende spørgsmål om hans model for undersøgelserne.

(…)

- Folk blev så vrede, da jeg brugte ordet muslim. Uh, man må ikke sige muslim. Og det er okay, for nu taler jeg om territorier i stedet for muslimer, siger han.

Det er en helt anden indstilling end den europæiske, der klart spejler sig i crooked Hillary. Jean-Claude Juncker “the EU chief admitted he would prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House to Donald Trump”, skriver Breitbart. Tro mod sit formål ræsonnerer formande at uanset omkostningerne er åbne grænser et gode

Mr. Juncker insisted that however bad the “migrant crisis” and terrorism in Europe gets, the EU will never call into question the free movement of people within the bloc.

“This is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the founding Treaty of Rome. It is an inviolable principle,” he said.

(…)

Dismissing suggestions that open borders led to the attacks, Mr. Juncker said he believed “exactly the opposite” – that the attacks should be met with a stronger display of liberal values including open borders.

Det verdensfjerne udsyn, renset for de grimme realiteter gennemsyrer både ekspertise, medier og myndigheder. Her sad jeg med kaffen og læste en ganske almindelig artikel på Danmarks Radio om noget af det seneste terror

Der er åbenlyst ingen sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland. Men for mange tyskere føles det som terror, selv når det ikke er det, siger DR’s Tyskland-korrespondent Michael Reiter.

- Det giver en følelse af, at man ikke kan gå ud i det offentlige rum uden at blive ramt af et eller andet forfærdeligt til hver en tid, siger Michael Reiter og tilføjer, at utrygheden kommer til udtryk på de sociale medier, i de tyske avisers ledere og hos dem, han taler med.

- Der en udpræget følelse af, at verden er at lave. Sådan var det allerede efter i fredags, hvor tyskerne oplevede blodbad nummer to på en uge.

Angreb gavner højrefløjen

De voldomme begivenheder kan meget vel give den islam- og indvandringskritiske tyske højrefløj ekstra vind i sejlene, vurderer Michael Reiter. For alle gerningsmænd har anden etnisk baggrund end tysk.

- For det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschland er det vand på møllen, når der er tale om terror. For det bekræfter dem og deres vælgere i deres meget heftige kritik af kansler Merkels flygtningepolitik, siger Michael Reiter.

Det er altså kun for det nationalkonservative parti Alternative für Deutschlands vælgere at der er en sammenhæng mellem den seneste uges fire voldelige angreb i Tyskland alle begået af indvandrere og at denne sammenhæng har at gøre med Merkels flygtningepolitik, hvor man “i årevis har tilladt folk at komme ind på deres territorium”. Det borger jo ikke godt for det samlede elektorat.

Skæggede mænd lavede tumult på nøgenbaderstrand” var en overskrift på Ekstrabladet, der i artiklen gav et lille hint ved at disse skæggede mænd “beskrives som værende ’sydlandske’ og som værende omkring 25 år gamle.” Som Møller på Uriasposten spekulerer i “kunne det godt være et efterspil til en fugtig kongres for kristen-arabiske julemænd, men nej”. Møllers sarkasme er desværre sørgelig præcis, hvis man læser de svenske medier, hvor det i ægte Camusks ånd er solen der var skyldig i de mange voldtægter. Midt i al det gejl kan man ikke fortænke den almindelige borger i at miste sin sunde fornuft

forkert-gc3a6t

Myndighederne i både Tyskland og Frankrig har haft travlt med at dække over problemets omfang og essens.

Der er en direkte sammenhæng mellem muslimsk indvandring og terror og vold. Trumps tale er sammenhængende, mens europærernes, med et engelsk udtryk er unhinged.

Finter, frygt og arbejdsdeling

Frederik Stjernfelt skriver fjernt fra positionalisterne om troendes diversificerede tilknytning til deres tro og religion

Der er tale om en art arbejdsdeling: Man har hellige mænd til at drive institutionen og udvikle teologien, man har almindelige troende til at udgøre dens skattegrundlag, og man har aggressive unge mænd til at tage sig af sammenstødene med de vantro og de konkurrerende konfessioner.

Og så er der dem, der luller os i søvn, ved at foregive at terroransatster er dagligdag. Som sagen med Alisiv Ceran, den unge studerende, der blev forvekslet med en terrorist fordi han opførte sig besynderligt. Eller hr. Tara, med det uskyldige fornavn Jihad, der pludselig ville overvære et Trykkefrihedsarrangement i skyggen mordforsøget på Trykkefrihedsselskabets daværende formand Lars Hedegaard. Eller tag dette eksempel fra Daily Mail

A Muslim teacher called Islam was told to remove a hoodie with his name on it because a barman said it was upsetting customers.

Humiliated Nurul Islam, 32, had arrived to meet fellow teachers at a local pub when the man told him his top was ‘offending people’ after last week’s Nice atrocity.

84 people killed were in a terror attack in the French city, with a further 303 injured.

Nurul, a father-of-three who is not practising, refused and has now reported the incident to police who are investigating it as a possible hate crime.

Ja, ikke? Det var bare hans navn og hans navn må han da vel bære på sin hættetrøje når han skulle have sig en muslimsk kæp i øret. Det ville jo være lige så normalt som hvis man hed, åh skal vi sige Adolf Hitler og besøgte synagogen. Så næste gang de ser noget uhyrligt, så antag venligst at det er helt naturligt eller risiker et sagsanlæg og udskamning som racist. David Wood forklarer her, hvorfor man ikke skal dølle sig i søvn ved ideen om de mange fordrukne muslimer, som ellers foregiver at være sækulariserede og integrerede (og det er en dyster advarsel om hvor umuligt det er at integrere muslimer ind i liberale samfund)

Obama: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant Death to America does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe”

Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.

Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

(…)

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.

Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.

Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

Obama-administrationen vil ikke associere islam med terrorangrebet på bøsse-baren i Orlando, der kostede 49 mennesker deres liv. Det vil efter Obamas opfattelse dæmonisere for mange muslimer og overlade definitionsretten til islam til de forkerte mennesker. Derfor var det meningen at transkribtionen af Orlando-morderens opkald til alarmcentralen ikke skulle indeholde det egentlige motiv, nemlig islam. Hårdt presset må den fulde tekst dog offentliggøres, skønt man stadig havde oversat Allah til Gud. Obama vil dog gerne gøre alle legale våbenejere, samt republikanerne til hovedproblemet. Venstrefløjen hader højrefløjen for at have ret.

I England vil Juliet Samuel gerne definere den yderste højre, når hun i Telegraph slår fast at mordet på den engelske labor politiker Jo Cox var højreorienteret terror. Jeg er ikke kommet langt nok i denne kedelige sag til at kunne konkludere, hvad der drev Cox morder Thomas Mair. Selv talte han efterfølgende om hævn, så helt forkert virker Samuels påstand ikke. Men Samuel fortæller om Jo Cox “The killing of a serving MP who had so much to contribute to our democracy has triggered a national period of sorrow, sobriety and reflection.” At Cox havde masser at byde på på er grangiveligt rigtigt, men hvis man med “our democracy” mener England er det tvivlsomt. Annie Dieu-Le-Veut skriver i The Holistic Health Store at Jo Cox “was so busy paving the road with good intentions that she didn’t look up to see that they were leading to Hell.” og citerer Francis Carb Begbie i Occidental Observer

Jo Cox wanted to make the world a better place and it was a cause for which she was willing to travel halfway across the globe. Whether consoling rape victims in Darfur or bombed out villagers in Afghanistan, it seemed the jet-setting international aid worker was rarely far from the action.

Lately it had been the struggle of Syrian war refugees to get to the West that touched her heart, and their plight was a subject she returned to again andagain after becoming a Member of Parliament. It seemed there was no victims anywhere she could not empathise with.

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

And that would be the White child rape victims of Muslim grooming gangs in her own back yard. For her West Yorkshire constituency is near the epicentre of the Muslim child rape epidemic that has been sweeping the Labour heartlands of northern England, largely ignored or covered up by social services workers, police and politicians.

For it is a striking omission that of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them. One cannot help wonder if this shrewd silence was connected to the fact that her lavishly paid MPs job in the constituency of Batley and Spen largely depended on the support of the local Muslim community.

Co-incidentally, just as Jo Cox was shot and stabbed to death outside her constituency office in Birstall last Thursday,  sentencing was about to take place at Leeds Crown Court after a long trial involving a horrific case of Muslim child exploitation.

(…)

Tribute after tribute bore witness to Jo Cox’s uniqueness. But in reality, nothing could have been further from the truth.  In fact, women like Jo Cox are ten a penny across the West these days — bland, compliant functionaries who have been marinated in political correctness and are happy to regurgitate the platitudes and attitudes of their political masters. And are well-rewarded for doing so. Elizabeth Warren (AKA Pocahontas) in the US comes to mind.

She was that toxic combination of self-rightousness and entitlement which believed itself possessed of a special moral insight into the moral shortcomings of their own people. Never slow to parade her compassion, she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria. Bombing and babies; it was all business for Jo Cox.

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

Today, with her body barely cold,  her husband Brendan Cox is tweeting out a Go Fund Me link to his wife’s ‘favourite causes’ and one of those is the White Helmets.

Manden, Brendan Cox har tidligere været inde i en af disse godhedens skandaler, kan man læse på Daily Mail.

What it’s always all about

En muslim med dansk statsborgerskab iscenesætter sig selv om offer for diskriminatiopn for et villigt TV2, der ikke formår at stille et eneste relevant spørgsmål. “Folk tror at det her det er virkelig…badetøjet det handler om. For mig handler det mest om, at min søn ikke fik lov til at være sammen med sin mor i en fridag” siger stakkels Ulfat Al-Sitt og ikke et øje er tørt. Men ingen nægtede sharia-aktivisten samvær med sønnen da det var Ulfat selv, der insisterede selv på religiøst badetøj.

Mesterinstruktøren Steven Spielberg advarede i en tale til nogle graduenter mod den stigende antisemitisme. Den var reel, fortalte han, selv om han selv var opvokset med en ide om at den var for aftagende efter destruktionen af Nazityskland. Også hadet mod homosexuelle var en stigende trussel. Spielberg er fantastisk bag et kameral, men han er også en centrum-venstrefløjser og i næste åndedræt advarede han imod den stigende islamofobi.

En dansk ægtefælle til en jøde funderer i Information over det sørgelige i at holde vagt i skudsikker vest foran sine børns skole.

Min datter på syv år peger stolt på mig.

»Se, min far er vagt i dag,« siger hun til sin veninde fra 1. klasse og banker på skjoldet i min skudsikre vest.

»Hvorfor har du egentlig den på?« spørger hun og kigger op på mig.

Spørgsmålet er stillet nysgerrigt, neutralt – ikke med angst eller frygt. Hun er jo kun syv år.

Hvad skal jeg svare hende? Jeg vælger den praktiske vinkel og forklarer hende, at en skudsikker vest gør, at jeg ikke dør, hvis jeg bliver skudt.

»Men hvem skulle da skyde dig?«

Jeg når at konstatere antydningen af frygt i hendes øjne, inden jeg svarer hende, at hvis der nu skulle komme en bandit med en skyder, så er det jo meget rart at vide, at jeg ikke kommer til skade. Hun lader til at være tilfreds med den forklaring, eller også er det bare venindens insisteren på at lege, der lader mig slippe for at komme med yderligere forklaring.

(…)

Vi ved ikke, hvornår angrebet kommer, og vi ved heller ikke, hvilken slags angreb det vil være – varme eller kolde våben, som det hedder. Vi ved det ikke, men vi har forberedt os på det meste. Vi har fået undervisning og uddannelse og øvelser gennemført af professionelle sikkerhedsfolk.

Man kan ikke sætte ord på. Det er bare en bandit, som vi ikke ved hvor kommer fra og i hvilke mængder. Nærmere beskrivelse er svær, hvis ikke man vil geråde sig ud i islamofobi. Så hans afsluttende retoriske spørgsmål “Hvem bliver de næste, der skal leve i frygt? De homoseksuelle?” fortjener ikke den forlorne undren. Vi ved, hvem der bliver de næsten, alle der kan krybe og gå, også de homosexuelle, som blev udsat for en mindre massakre i den amerikanske by Orlando.

50 mennesker er indtil videre tallet af dræbte med over hundrede sårede. Gerningsmanden er “amerikaner med afghansk baggrund” dristede DR tekst-TV sig til at sige og så vidste man jo, hvad klokken var slået og straks blev der fra officielt hold i Florida rakt ud til det muslimske samfund, som jo altid er de sande ofre når ikke-muslimer slagtes, og Facebook lukkede Pamela Gellers FB-side ned for at knytte islams lære til islams praksis med tilfældet bøssemassakren i Orlando. Alligevel taler amerikaneren med muslimsk baggrund Barak Husein Obama ikke om islam; “no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer (…) ‘What is clear is that he was a person filled with hate

‘The shooter targeted a nightclub where people came together to be with friends, to dance and to sing, and to live,’ Obama noted.

‘The place where they were attacked was more than a nightclub, it was a place of solidarity, of empowerment, where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds and to advocate for their civil rights,’ he continued.

Og så konstaterede han aT “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle“, hvorfor det var et spørgsmål om øget våbenkontrol. At der netop døde så mange bøsser fordi ingen af dem var bevæbnet med bøsser så de kunne forsvare sig selv og hinanden i ægte ‘empoweret’ solidaritet, i stedet for blot at blive slagtet i hinandens arme.

trump-krc3a6ver-svar

Obama mødes dog gerne med homofober, så længe de er muslimer, skriver Breitbart

President Barack Obama choose to publicly meet with an Islamic preacher in February who said the Koran declares gay sex “a despised act, it is haram, it is forbidden in Islam, completely, absolutely.”

The meeting in Baltimore came shortly after Breitbart publicized the Islamic cleric’s orthodox denigration of gays, which was posted on YouTube. It also came after Breitbart asked Obama’s gay political allies to comment on the Islamic cleric’s statements.

“You are a transgressing people,” said the cleric Imam Yaseen Shaikh, who sat on Obama’s left at the meeting. He is the man at the right hand side of the photo above, wearing a white hat. He is a senior leader of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which Obama choose for the first presidential visit to a mosque in February 2016.

obama-og-homofoberne

En bøsse-aktivist på Sky News, der som Obama beskrev bøsseklubber, som “places of solidarity”, kunne se at det var et “deliberate attack on LGBT people“, men nægtede at forholde sig til, hvilken åndelighed, der lå bag denne bandit, eller med hans ord, “dreg of humanity”. “Scum” kaldte han ham “That’s all he is!”. “Any Dreg of humanity can pick up a gun a murder people”,men forsigtigt forholdt simple realiteter om bandittens muslimske tanke og tale (selv bandittens arbejdskollegaer kunne se han var en tikkende bombe, men frygten for islamofobi-beskyldninger afholdt dem fra at reagere korrekt), blev den selvretfærdige prædiken utilstrækkelig og han stormede ud af studiet

For en god ordens skyld, så slog en Orlando imam ellers fast at døden kun er hvad bøsser fortjener.

I hvilken som helst by med eller uden en massakre kan man finde en imam der roligt har forklaret logikken bagved. Denne forklarer hvori islamisk barmhjertighed består, nemlig som en nedjustering af opskruede grusomheder. Daily Mail fortæller at en tyrkisk avis kalder ofrene ‘perverse’. Daily Mail anstrenger sig samtidig for at kalde den tyrkiske avis ”right wing” uden helt at fortælle om den er fortaler for minimalstat eller bare alment islamofobisk.

Newt Gingrich taler dog sober om sammenhængen mellem islam og vold mod først og fremmest minoriteter.

Love is in the air

Vi kan overvinde had ved at imødegå negative stereotyper og fordomme gennem dialog og næstekærlighed” skriver Ayan Yasin, “studerende og veninde med de to voldsofre”, i Politiken. De to voldsofre er Nada Musse og Ayaan Ahmed, der blev “verbalt og fysisk overfaldet af tre etniske dansker – en mand og to kvinder – efter et cafébesøg i Odense” og det var “en forbrydelse motiveret af had til og fordomme mod muslimer og er en konsekvens af folkevalgte politikeres indvandrerfjendtlige polemik og propaganda mod den muslimske minoritet i Danmark.”

Hvad kan vi lære af denne hadforbrydelse? Hvordan får vi vendt skuden? Al had er tillært og kan derfor aflæres. Vi kan overvinde had ved at imødegå negative stereotyper og fordomme gennem dialog og næstekærlighed.

Hadforbrydelser er et åbent angreb på vores danske værdier og skal bekæmpes med handlinger af godhed. Vi, flertallet, kan ikke tie længere. I lyset af had er tavshed dødbringende. At tie er at samtykke, og apati kan tolkes som accept.

Godt de stakkels ‘Sharia-aktivister‘ ikke var fra Politiet. Men jeg modstår fristelser om at nævne moskeer, koraner, Muhammeds udsagn, kriminalstatistikker, Frankrig i undtagelsestilstand, terror mod jøder, Islamisk Stat…. Hmmm, Islamisk stat og tonen i debatten, det minder mig om noget jeg læste tidligere i debatten. Åh jo, “Socialdemokraten Jacob Lund, der sad i Folketinget for sit parti i et år frem til valget sidste sommer” og “ i dag er lokalformand for Socialdemokraternes partiforening på Nordbornholm” tweetede “IS er en muslimsk version af DF” fordi Dansk Folkeparti vil “tage opholdstilladelsen fra flygtninge og sende dem hjem.” skriver Berlingske Tidende

Overfor politiko.dk uddyber Jacob Lund sin holdning:

»De har begge to frygten for det fremmede. Begge parter vil jo gerne udrydde dem, der ikke hører hjemme hos dem selv. Det kan godt være den ene skyder på dem, og de andre bare fortæller dem, at de skal flygte, men målet er jo det samme,« siger Jacob Lund.

(…)

At man ønsker, at flygtninge og immigranter skal sendes retur, er vel ret forskelligt i forhold til IS, der slår folk ihjel?

»Nej, de skræmmer jo også.«

Men IS slår folk ihjel?

»Ja, på den måde er der forskel, men begge parter vil gerne have sit eget område for sig selv.«

Måske er det svært med dialog hvor muslimer og venstrefløjsere ikke kan tænke en ærlig tanke, men måske skulle man prøve med næstekærlighed - eller måske blot med noget juhu, mens det hele går ad helvede til, så luk øjnene og dans dialog ind i dit hjerte

Fredens projekt

Demografi, Diverse, EU, England, Erdogan, Fascisme, Historie, Indvandring, Multikultur, Muslimer, Terror, Tyskland — Drokles on May 13, 2016 at 4:49 am

Selv som teenager købte jeg ikke postulatet om EF, siden EU, som fredens garant i Europa. Jeg forstod, selv med mit ringe kendskab til den store verden, at politikerne optrådte som kvaksalere, betlende slangeolie mod alle dårligdomme. Både Den Kolde Krig og den stille observation at demokratier ikke havde præcedens for at gå i flæsket på hinanden var indlysende argumenter for mit unge sind, som blæste ideen om en unions fortræffeligheder og et par handelsaftalers mirakelvirkning væk. Jeg har aldrig fået en EF/EU tilhænger til at forklare præcis hvad det er for en krig, som EU har forhindret. Kul- og Stål unionen skulle hindre endnu en tysk-fransk konflikt og da den var en fransk opfindelse måtte man mene at det var tyskerne man burde stoppe. Så hvem var den næste Hitler? Adenauer? Erhard? Kiesinger? Brandt? Smith? Kohl? Hvilke af disse gale hunde blev holdt i skak af Unionen?

Så indlysende var den indsigt for mig at den er blevet siddende så fast i alle årene at jeg end ikke gad overveje at læse Kasper Støvrings sikkert glimrende bog Fortællingen om Fredens Europa - Georg Metz kunne ikke lide den, så den må være ret god - fordi det er anstrengende at blive bekræftet i egne forestillinger. Og påstanden om EUs fredskabende egenskaber er da også på retræte, måske især efter EU hovent paraderede sin impotens overfor Rusland, mens det æggede Ukraine. Og så var der jo Jugoslavien i 90′erne. Men herhjemme er ikke i England, der står overfor at skulle bestemme sig om de overhovedet vil være medlem af, hvad der i stigende grad ligner en taberklub. Og med en mistillidserklæring fra vælgerne truende i horisonten, bliver systemets mænd endnu mere stålsatte på at benytte de metoder der ikke virker, blot mere intenst. I dette tilfælde argumentet om EU som fredens projekt, hvor premierminister David Cameron direkte advarede om at et Brexit ville kaste Europa ud i krig.

I Guardian kaldte Simon Jenkins Camerons historieskrivning for “rubbish” og “Project Fear gone mad” og mindede om Camerons forgænger Salisbury, der navngav sin politik “splendid isolation”

The best thing that happened to medieval England was its defeat in the hundred years war and the end of English ambitions on the continent of Europe. The best thing to happen in the 16th century was Henry VIII’s rejection of the pan-European papacy. The wisest policy of his daughter, Elizabeth I, was an isolationism so rigid that she rejected one continental suitor after another. Britain fought off all attempts by France and Spain to restore European Catholicism, and accepted a Dutch and a German monarch strictly on the basis of British parliamentary sovereignty.

Cameron’s 18th-century predecessor was Robert Walpole, author of Walpole’s Peace. Its meticulous isolation from Europe’s conflicts brought Britain a golden age of enlightenment and industrial revolution. In 1734, Walpole could proudly tell the Queen: “Madam there are 50,000 men slain this year in Europe, and not one an Englishman.”

Even William Pitt’s creation of a British empire was based on staying explicitly aloof from the seven years’ war on the continent of Europe. Later, while Horatio Nelson’s victories were essential to British interests, the Waterloo campaign could hardly, on David Cameron’s terms, have been avoided by earlier intervention. Nor did Napoleon Bonaparte pose a serious threat to Britain.

I Telegraph mindede Nigel Jones ligeledes om en af Camerons konservative forgængere, nemlig Pitt the Younger, der som argument for at stå imod Napoleons tyranni sagde at det var englands rolle atSave Europe by her example”. Og et Brexit kunne meget vel være et eksempel med en domino-effekt indikerer meningsmålinger. Som kontrast beskrev han Camerons horistont med Goebbels diktum om at folk vil tro en løgn, blot den er stor nok. For mens EUs grundlæggere “distrusted democracy, which they believed had brought dictators and demagogues to power, and determined that their project would create a post-democratic new order, imposed by stealth step by step on their blissfully ignorant populations” peger Jones på at unioner ser ud til at kollapse, nogengange endda i et kaos af krig.

The history of EU-style multinational federations imposed by an elite from above in Europe is not a happy one. From the frayed patchworks of the  Holy Roman and Hapsburg Austrian Empires, down to the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they have invariably ended in bloody chaos, and then the peace and quiet of the graveyard.

Not for nothing did a bemused Mikhail Gorbachev – and as the man who presided over the dissolution of Russia’s “evil empire” he should surely know – say that the most puzzling development in Europe over the past decade was the determination of the EU’s leaders to reconstruct the Soviet Union, a failed state if there ever was one, on the soil of western Europe.

Gorbachev was speaking before the long arm of EU meddling reached as far as Ukraine, causing that vast country to split in two and threaten  war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia – a slow-burn crisis that may yet erupt once more into open conflict.

Back in the 1990s, the total failure of EU diplomacy helped speed former Yugoslavia into a brutal ethnic civil war. A fragile peace was finally imposed on those troubled lands not by the EU, but by Nato bombs and arm twisting backed by the Atlantic alliance’s  military muscle.

Og Oberst Richard Kemp var Telegraph endnu mere konkret i hvorledes EU ville underminere freden

A German defence white paper, leaked last week but supposed to be kept under wraps until after the referendum, leaves no doubt of Germany’s intention to drive through the merger of Europe’s armed forces “and embark on permanent cooperation under common structures”. Germany has begun to combine substantial elements of the Dutch forces with their own.

A centralised army is an indispensable component of the superstate to which the EU is openly committed. It would also provide an excuse for struggling economies to slash defence budgets. Few nations take defence seriously enough to spend even the 2 per cent of GDP required by Nato, a shortcoming criticised by President Obama in Germany last month. An EU army will see these nations cut back even further, cynically pretending that defences are strengthened even as forces and capabilities are merged and downsized.

(…)

As well as depleted strength and capability, the aggregated European forces will beemasculated by a lack of political will. After Iraq and Afghanistan the West is paralysed, with governments terrified of committing ground forces to any conflict. An EU command structure, fraught with divergent and opposing policy agendas, will turn paralysis into rigor mortis. Look at the EU’s long track record of vacillation, timidity and inaction on the Balkans, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, the immigration crisis and the Islamic State.

None of our enemies is going to take an EU army seriously. Its creation would undermine one of the most critical virtues of a strong and credible defence: deterring an aggressor from action they might be forced to regret.

Og i Breitbart perspektiverede samme Kemp

The EU failed to prevent the migration crisis that threatens to overwhelm many European cities and the housing, welfare, health, and education services paid for by the hard work of citizens who have been allowed no say.

The EU failed to deploy effective naval forces along the North African coast to prevent illegal immigration across the Mediterranean. Such action, used to great effect by Australia, would not only have prevented the landing of countless unregulated immigrants on our shores but would also have saved thousands of lives and sent a firm message to both immigrants and traffickers.

It was self-doubt and a desire to expunge the sins of the past rather than strong and principled leadership that led Europe’s most powerful politician unilaterally to invite in migrants from the corners of the earth, to transform German cities and to assault and rape German girls. A policy that opened the doors of Europe to hundreds of thousands of economic migrants, including many young men of fighting age who abandoned their families and their countries; and closed the doors to genuine refugees.

Timorous EU countries failed to take military action against Assad’s regime in Syria when he crossed the chemical weapons ‘red line’. Action that could have ended his reign of terror and prevented the intervention of Russia and Iran that has solidified his position and exacerbated the migrant crisis.

Fearful EU members failed even to contemplate setting up protected safe havens in Syria, where millions of beleaguered people could have taken refuge without the need to move to other countries. This would have required boots on the ground but, terrified by experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, few if any EU states are prepared to countenance that. Physical danger was not their only fear; they were also afraid to act without United Nations authorization, which would have been vetoed by Russia.

Now, bullied and blackmailed by President Erdogan, the EU is now allowing visa free access to Europe for 70 million Turks and is well on the way to admitting Turkey to full EU membership. Not only will this push back the borders of the EU to Iran, Iraq and Syria, but it will also lead to yet another massive population shift in Europe, without consultation further transforming the way of life of its citizens.

This is the peace and security provided by the EU today.

EU som fredens projekt er en løgn ingen længere gider høre. Kun de mest desperate gider fortsat fortælle den. England forlader EU, EU falder fra hinanden - med lidt held.

brexit

Saudi Arabia Uncovered

Her er en dokumentar om livet i Saudiarabien. Optaget med skjult kamera får vi et indblik i muslimsk liv, som det leves hvor det tages alvorligt. Fra The Muslim Issue

Saudi Arabia spent over $70 billion from oil revenues between 1984 to 2004 to spread Wahhabi Islam and terrorism all over the world. Our own trade budget is recycled and used to expand terrorism. Islamic terrorism accoding to the laws and dictates of prophet Mohammed. The amount has now surpassed $100 billion.

So why is the world still engaged in trade with the Saudis and the Muslim world in general, so intolerant and hateful of ‘the other’? Why are they allowed to get visas, diplomatic immunity, purchase properties, invest and fly in and out of the West with special previleges? This is a criminal alliance that is treason to the people in the West, their future and their security. This international association with the Islamic world is funding and enabling the spread of terrorism worldwide. The oil trade is the foundation of that door that opens to Saudi terror initiatives.

The Saudis have worked for decades to establish their roots in Bosnia and Herzegovina where they feel they gain easier access to spread Wahhabism into Europe. There they operate entire plagiarism operations and education on forging official documents. When Merkel Muslims illegally arrived into the mediterranean pre-planned through fraudulant claims in need of asylum Saudis didn’t offer them any shelters of ‘protection’ in their mutual Ummah. The Saudis quickly offered to fund 200 mosques. 200 Wahhabi mosques of hatred to be spread across Europe. There is already 5,000 mosques across Europe.

Imamer og ørefigner

TV2 har lavet en dansk pendant til de engelske Undercover Mosque og Undercover Mosque - The Return, Moskeerne bag sløret. Kim Møllers Document.dk gennemgik essensen

Det blev ikke udpenslet, men de problematiske moskéer var de største, og mellem linjerne kom det frem, at det på ingen måde drejede sig om at et mindretal af herboende muslimer fra flere arabiske lande og Somalia. Det blev fortalt, at 80 procent af kvinder fra disse lande ikke var i arbejde, hvad til dels blev forklaret med islams holdning til kvinders ageren i det offentlige rum.

Og Kasper Støvring mindede om de sørgelige tal

Er det kun et lille mindretal, der støtter det? Det er tvivlsomt, hvis vi ser på den mest omfattende undersøgelse, der er lavet om europæiske muslimer, WZB-undersøgelsen. Her mener 75 procent af alle muslimer, at der kun findes én sand udlægning af Koranen, og 65 procent mener, at religiøse lov skal stå over sekulære love. I en undersøgelse fra sidste år, lavet af Wilke for Jyllands-Posten, så man en stigende tendens til islamisering blandt muslimer i Danmark. I 2006 mente 62 procent af danske muslimer, at Koranens anvisninger skal følges fuldt ud. Det tal er vokset til 77 procent i dag. Undersøgelsen viste også, at 50 procent beder mere end fem gange dagligt. Ved en tilsvarende måling i 2006 var det tal blot 37 procent, og andelen der ønsker, at kvinder skal være tilslørede i det offentlige rum, er vokset fra 28 procent til 42.

Ah ja, skjulte optagelser fra en moske sætter fokus på enkelte imamer og deres misforståede udlægning af islam - i hvert fald for vores politiske systems opfattelse. Venstres integrations- og udlændingeordfører Marcus Knuth “personlige reaktion er, at man bør rive moskéen ned og udvise imamerne“, skriver TV2. Og Konservative vil sammen med SF have en decideret dansk imamuddannelse, “et opgør med de selvbestaltede imamer, der kommer med grundlæggende anderledes samfundssyn end det, vi har i Danmark“, som integrationsordfører for Socialistisk Folkeparti Jacob Mark formulerede det ifølge Jyllands-Posten. Det er for socialister ikke et dansk samfundssyn vi har i Danmark, blot et samfundssyn i Danmark - og nu har vi altså et samfundssyn til. Alligevel “væmmes” Jacob Mark faktisk over de sydlandske

Som udgangspunkt er jeg villig til at gå ret langt for at få erstattet de radikale imamer, som får lov til at prædike i danske moskeer. Så hvis det handler om at finansiere de moskeer, der ikke har råd til sin egen imam, så synes jeg, det er det værd

Selvom vi kun har et samfundssyn i Danmark, så har vi dog noget, der er dansk, nemlig danske moskeer. Og de danske moskeer er af svingende kvalitet med hensyn til det i øjeblikket tilstedeværende samfundssynd, så vi må støtte de mindst ringe mod overmagten. Møller fangede pointen i at “de problematiske moskéer var de største“, største, som i mest populære, læggende sig mest op ad mainstream, mest på linie med muslimer flest, givende mest mening for en troende muslim, i størst overensstemmelse med islams væsen - sådan set ud fra et muslimsk perspektiv. TV2 citerede endvidere Venstres forrige integrations- og udlændingeordfører, den senere skatteminister Karsten Lauritzen, der sidste år ikke mente at man “løser problemet i Grimhøj ved at lukke lokalerne og jævne bygningen med jorden“, førend han fortsatte med en tom indsigt

For det er de mennesker, der prædiker og har deres daglige gang og holdninger, der er problemet. Dem bekæmper vi bedst ved at tage en debat omkring det og udfordre dem i offentligheden i stedet for at drive dem under jorden

Ja, absurditeterne bor i hjerterne og ikke i murstenene, men det er ikke et imamproblem at imamerne kender islam og prædiker for menigheden. Venstre er regeringen og trods deres bravaller vil ingen imam blive hældt ud af landet for at fortælle om islam, som ingen muslim vil blive stoppet ved grænsen. Og hvorfor også det da “vi har selv lukket den fanatiske imam, Oussama El-Saadi ind” som konstitueret præst i Stenstrup-Lunde pastorat Maria Høgh skriver i Berlingske Tidende

Og hvad gør vi så ved det? Ja, vi kunne begynde med at opgive troen på det gode i mennesket. Trangen til retfærdighed og godhed i mennesket er med Tom Kristensens udtryk »asiatisk i vælde«. Det er ikke bare en uskyldig og naiv tro – den er farlig for nationen, fordi trangen til godhed også bliver politisk.

Men politikerne vil ikke opgive illusionen. Vil de ikke se i øjnene, hvad vi har lukket ind i landet siden 1983? Skal det ikke snarere handle om inddæmningspolitik i stedet for integrationspolitik?

Hvis nogen bliver godt integreret i Danmark, er det ikke alene på grund af en eller anden politisk pakkeløsning, men fordi det enkelte menneske selv tager ansvar og gør op med sine patriarkalske familiemønstre og den islamiske ideologi. Selvfølgelig skal Grimhøj-moskeen lukkes, som Naser Khader straks udtalte søndag aften. Men hvad så?

Oussama El-Saadi kan vi vel smide ud af landet, men er problemet så løst? Nej, det ændrer ikke på islams DNA, og enhver muslim har frihed til at tro på ideologien. Det ændrer ikke på, at verden har brug for en reformation af islam. Eller, må Danmark en dag i nødværge tage skridt, som strider mod alt det, vi som et demokratisk folk er opdraget med?

Tja – forhåbentlig ikke. Men her til morgen (mandag) har SFs Özlem Cekic heldigvis løst problemet: »Så uddan for hulen imamerne i Danmark!« skriver hun på Facebook. Det vil sige, at småfuglene selv skal udruge gøgeungen frivilligt? Men det skal de vel med vores store tolerance have lov til?

Og Jaleh Tavakoli kalder imamernes opfordring til forældre om at tæske deres børn ind i islam for hadforbrydelser og opfordringer til racistisk vold. Hun mente at højrefløjen burde stoppe deres “symbolpolitik” og “spil for galleriet

Og hvorfor egentligt så al den larm, for de ting, der har været fremme om Grimhøjsmoskeen, er da islamisk teologi - som langt de fleste moskeer, også i Danmark, kan skrive under på.

(…)

Kære politi, retsvæsen og politikere, fortæl mig venligst, hvorfor imamer og islamister ikke retsforfølges for at tale for faktisk at bekrige jøder, dræbe for apostasi og blasfemi, og deltage i hellig krig?

Det er utilgiveligt, at imamer og islamister uden nogen konsekvenser kan fortsætte med at true og opfordre til vold, for det foregår, det findes på nettet, i lukkede kredse og i moskeerne.

(…)

En politisk kamp der strækker sig fra integration, til asylpolitik, til sikkerhedspolitik, til ulandsbistand, og til de militære konflikter, som vi deltager i.

I kan starte med i stedet at afskaffe de paragraffer, som tjener som appeasement, i en tid hvor fascismen truer os på ytringsfriheden, og det gælder både blasfemi- og racismeparagraffen.

(…)

Samtidigt ved jeg, at en del imamer på tværs af organisationer har valgt ikke at udtale sig. For teologisk er de på trods af uenigheder, enige om pisk, straffen for apostasi, blasfemi og stening med mere, så det siger jo sig selv.

Måske man kunne tæske islams væsen ind i vore politikere, som muslimerne skal tæske det ind i deres børn? Imens i Rusland har nogen hyret en barnepige med hijab

Det var et sidespring. Og apropos sidespring, Bettina Heltberg mente i Politiken, at kunne “se på Marie Krarups bittert nedadbøjede mundvige, at hun i Guds navn har fået mange små relevante ørefigner i sin opvækst“. “Hendes ansigt er bittert, træk for træk ligner hun sin far. Han var berygtet for at slå sine døtre…” skrev hun oplysende. At det er en løgn kommer ikke i vejen for Politikens faste klummeskriver, der selv levede med rygterne om sin tidligere mand, Svend Aukens udenomsægteskablige eskapader - ‘Lange Svend’ var altid dobbelttydigt. Men gad vide, hvad hvad Heltberg ser i muslimers ansigter?

- Frygt Allah, brødre og søstre, lær jeres børn Salah (at bede red.). Det er obligatorisk for jer at lære dem at bede, fra de er syv år. Og endda at slå dem, hvis de ikke laver Salah, når de er 10 år, siger imamen på de skjulte optagelser.

Og som Møller skriver i sit referat; “Vold var et gennemgående tema” i skabelsen af gode muslimer. Man hører det hele tiden.

Fri Debat uden ideologisk dagsorden

dsc02726

Fri Debats konference lørdag 6/2 stillede spørgsmålet, hvordan det er “kommet dertil, at blasfemi i dag betragtes som en sinister ideologi i kunst- og litteraturlivet, mens tavshed om den religiøse terror og tvang fremstår som progressiv blandt kunstnere og forfattere?” Til at besvare det spørgsmål havde man indbudt et panel bestående af færøske Heini i Skorini fra King’s College, Dennis Meyhoff Brink fra Københavns universitet og kunstnerne Lars Vilks fra Sverige og norske Thomas Knarvik til en næsten fyldt fællessal på Christiansborg.

I sin korte indledning sagde Henrik Dahl fra Liberal Alliance, at historien vil bedømme denne generation af politikere på hvor resolut de er i stand til at forsvare det liberale samfund. Som emnets alvor således blev placeret i historien var Niels Ivar Larsen manden for at motivere sin nylige afgang fra Lars Vilks Selskabet og positionere Fri Debat i “landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister”. Fri debat var nemlig den mest principfaste forsvarer af ytringsfriheden uden ‘men’, blottet for ideologiske dagsordner og påstande om ytringsfrihed som noget kulturelt betinget.

Et principfast forsvar for ytringsfriheden kræver altså at man ikke lader sig præge af kulturalistiske dagsordner når man diskuterer blasfemi, censur og selvcensur blandt kunstnere. Men ikke nok med det, det kræver også et sikkerhedsapparat med snifferhunde og politifolk med maskinpistoler kunne man erfare og det er ikke fordi man frygter alle kulturelle repræsentanter lige meget. Mangel på proportioner giver åbenbart den bedste position i landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister.

Dennis Meyhoff Brink, der er ekstern lektor ved institut for kunst og kulturvidenskab, foretog i sit oplæg en analogi mellem det kristne Europas udvikling fra Oplysningen og et tilsvarende perspektiv for den islamiske verden. Europa var kendetegnet ved at have den ubestrideligt højeste grad af religionskritik og satire i nogen civilisation og det var da også i Europa demokratiet opstod og trivedes. Årsagensforbindelsen var klar; Oplysningens blasfemiske satire udhulede, som dryp på en sten, med et Webersk udtryk, den fortryllede verden og tog frygten fra folk. Med frygtens fald fulgte også æresfrygten for præsten, der nu kunne latterliggøres, ikke blot som repræsentant for kirkens hykleri, men for religionen i sig selv.

Lars Vilks forklarede derefter hvorledes opfattelsen af geniet fordrede at kunstneren selv blev den skabende og gennemgik en række blasfemiske kunstværker; film af bl.a Lois Bunuel og Ken Russel og billeder som Piss Christ. Netop Piss Christ er trukket meget ind i debatten om religiøs krænkelse og islam for skønt nogle dybere lag i værket - at selve værket er et fotografi af en installation af et krucifiks nedsænket i glas urin - så blev der ikke taget hensyn til kristnes krænkede følelser, som man er vant til, når emnet er udfordring af islam.

Den norske kunstner Knarviks første forelæser på kunstakademiet var netop Lars Vilks. Knarvik viste endnu flere billeder end sin ‘læremester’ og mange han selv havde kreeret, som han fortalte om, hvorledes han var blevet engageret i kampen om ytringsfrihed og blasfemi, og hvorledes det havde påvirket hans kunstneriske retning. Knarvik er, som de øvrige panelister, ingen skimlet konservativ kulturkæmper. Han har f.eks blandt andet bygget et kulturcenter for massaikvinder og skabt en forfatterpersona, en muslimsk teenagepige under navnet Miss Supression Figther. For ham er mange muslimer de største ofre for de jihadister, der har taget deres religion som gidsel og gjort den største karikatur af Muhammed.

Men han har også overhørt skrigene fra en pige, der blev omskåret og bevidnet hvorledes kvinderne, der forestod omskæringen, kom ud af hytten og smed det omskårne ud til naturen. Og hans interesse for islam, som en trussel mod ytringsfriheden, blev vakt da han hørte den norske statsminister undskylde for alverden, at den norske avis Dagbladet havde trykt Muhammedtegninger.

Knarvik udgav på 10-årsdagen for offentliggørelsen af Jyllands-Postens Muhammedtegninger en mere end 100 sider lang samling af blasfemiske tegninger rettet mod alle religioner. Et norsk forlag havde i første omgang trykt den i 2.500 eksemplarer og den lå klar på en europalle, da forlaget blev ængsteligt ved udsigten til endnu en Muhammedkrise og makulerede hele oplaget. Bogen er i stedet udkommet på Kåre Bluitgens forlag.

Men det var den første oplægsholder, Heine i Skorini, der leverede det mest almeninteressante oplæg, da han perspektiverede den islamiske trussel historisk. Han fortalte først om en Muhammedkrise i 1925, der blev udløst da den engelske morgenavis The Star havde trykt en tegning, hvor den tids legendariske cricketspiller Jack Hobbs ragede op som en kæmpe blandt andre historiske skikkelser, som Julius Cæsar, Columbus og så selvfølgelig muslimernes profet Muhammed. Muslimske organisationer protesterede højlydt og der var demonstrationer i Calcutta. Ingen døde dog, men episoden demonstrerede at ideen om at en nyopfunden islamisme adskilt fra en ægte, om ikke tolerant, så afdæmpet, islam ikke holder.

i Skorini fortalte hvorledes OIC (organisationen af islamiske lande), gennem FN har arbejdet målrettet på at gøre blasfemi til en krænkelse af menneskerettighederne. OIC ser den islamiske verden være under pres både udefra, ikke mindst fra Vesten, og indefra. I Kairo deklarationen fra 1990 hedder det således at formålet bl.a er ”cleanse our societys of moral laxity deviation” og dens artikel 22 slår fast at ytringsfriheden (og alt andet i øvrigt) skal underlægges den muslimske sharia lovgivning.

Bastante religiøse krav til en sekulær organisation, som FN er ikke effektivt og i 1999 skiftede organisationen taktik til en sekulær argumentation. Nu brugte man i stedet FNs egne artikler, som artikel 29, der betoner ansvar over frihed og artikel 22 om hadtale, til at få ytringsfriheden underlagt sharia. For OIC var religionskrænkelse, som grundlæggende blot betød krænkelse af islam jvf sharia-kravet ovenfor, en krænkelse af menneskerettigheder på linje med racisme, intolerance, islamofobi og ekstremisme. OICs nye argumentation var derfor også på linje med den vestlige venstrefløjs tankegang og det skabte en naturlig alliance af parallelinteresser.

Netop det sidste punkt, at se blasfemi som ekstremisme, er forklaringen på, hvorfor muslimske landes fordømmelser af islamisk terror, som Saudiarabiens fordømmelse af angrebet på Charlie Hebdo, altid ledsages af fordømmelser af ekstremisme i al almindelighed. De myrdede, som redaktionen på Charlie Hebdo, er nemlig lige så ekstreme i deres brug af ytringsfriheden, som deres mordere. Og det er en retorik som man hører ikke blot fra venstrefløjen men fra vestlige ledere.

Det var en journalist fra information, der stillede det første spørgsmål til panelet, om forskellen på satirens antiklerikale, politiske angreb og kunstens ikonografiske behandling af det blasfemiske, førend to tilhørere ville vide, hvad Saudiarabiens betydning for FNs Råd for Menneskerettigheder og OICs fremtid som Saudiarabiens økonomiske situation ser drastisk anderledes ud med de faldende oliepriser. Saudiarabien sponserer OIC og organiserer dagsordenen på de indre linjer, mens det er Pakistan der tegner organisationen i FN.  Skorini svarede at det dels udstiller FN for hvad det er, en samling af de regimer og regeringer i verden, der nu engang er og at Saudiarabiens betydning for OIC ikke vil ændre sig de første mange år, dertil er rollerne for satte. Og så svarede Vilks og Knarvik meget pædagogisk at satire er meget bundet i en konkret debat i tid og sted, mens kunst ikke søger et konkret politisk budskab og kan værdsættes ud over tid.

Først herefter var der en tilhører, der ville have svar på konferencens spørgsmål, nemlig, hvorfor kunstnere, og alle os andre såmænd, var mere optaget af selvkritik end af religionskritik, selv når vi blev konfronteret med en trussel. Spørgsmålet kom næsten bag på panelet, der dog hver for sig svarede at det traditionelt var lettere og moralsk mere acceptabelt at levere angreb på værdier inden for egen kulturkreds end at kritisere, hvad man kunne opfatte som udsatte minoriteter med kulturelt betingede problemer. Det handlede, med udgangspunkt i eksemplet Carsten Jensens jævnlig tirader, om hvem der havde ret til at kritisere andre. Og det var en god pointe, for ingen vil jo mistænkes for at have en ideologisk dagsorden.

Og det var der også en tilhører der heller ikke ville og mindede Meyhoff Brink om at satire ikke kun var forbeholdt vesten og fortalte om en irakisk ateistisk bevægelse der bedrev en ganske giftig satire. Desværre blev denne bevægelse slået hårdt ned beklagede han og besvarede således sit eget spørgsmål, inden islameksperten Tina Magaard tog ordet og sagde at hun faktisk havde skrevet om blasfemisk satire i den muslimske verden ikke mindst Iran. Det var Magaards pointe at netop Muhammed satire var et inkluderende redskab i integrationen i vores selvkritiske kultur og at man skulle vise skolebørn muhammedtegninger fra den muslimske verden, der almindeligvis var langt grovere end de tegninger Jyllands-Posten udgav.

Og så var det, at det sidste spørgsmål kom fra en tilhører, der ville høre panelet, hvorledes det ville se ud med ytringsfriheden om føje tid i et stadigt mindre demokratisk Europa “og med en stadig mere islamisk indflydelse”. Det er svært at holde en hel konference om “religiøs terror og tvang” og “blasfemi” uden at komme ind på noget ‘kulturelt betinget’, ideologisk dagsorden eller ej. Inden det skulle besvares syntes Meyhoff Brink at det var på sin plads med et fejlcitat og sagde “Jeg synes også det er racistisk når Hedegaard siger at ‘alle muslimske mænd, onkler og fædre, voldtager deres døtre…”. Men ytringsfrihedens fremtidsudsigter i et mere et mindre demokratisk og mere islamificeret Europa var et svært spørgsmål at forholde sig til på falderebet af konferencen, sagde Ivar Larsen og gav ordet til i Skorini.

Forholdene i Danmark var ikke nær så dårlige som i England, forklarede i Skorini og sagde at han selv måtte forberede sig ganske anderledes når han holdt foredrag i London end i Danmark. Og det var ikke blot kønsopdelte arrangementer, men også sikkerhedsproblemer fordi så mange kunne blive stødt og emnets indhold. Men han mindede om at de islamistiske grupper udgjorde en meget lille og ikke repræsentativ minoritet blandt de muslimske studerende, men realiteterne var deusagtet at det var svært for ham at bevare en optisme. Og med den kedelige udsigt var konferencen slut.

Uagtet hvor urepræsentative og lille en minoritet islamister udgør på campus, kan man alligevel konkludere, hvad i Skorini og Fri Debat helst vil tøve med, at jo flere kulturelt betingede muslimer vi ser på campus og i vores land, jo mere vil det være islamisternes dagsorden vi vil leve under. Men dyster som fremtiden ser ud kan man glæde sig over at vi i Danmark har et levende landskab af ytringsfrihedsaktivister med hele tre virile selskaber i Fri Debat, Trykkefrihedsselskabet og Lars Vilks Komiteen. At det til tider bærer lidt præg af positionering og nok også en snert af intern personrivalisering er en lille detalje og måske blot et bidrag til at holde konkurrencen skarp og landskabet frodigt. Fri Debats arrangement var så velafholdt og oplysende, som man er kommet til at forvente det i Danmark - men desværre med et tilhørende sikkerhedsopbud, selv for de, der ikke vil vedkende sig en ideologisk dagsorden.

Artikel skrevet for Document.dk

Det er dem! Og det er også os

Marxisterne har marcheret gennem uddannelsesinstitutionerne med stor succes og fortællingen er kun at se indand og bagud. Som en psykoanalyse, befamler du kun dine egne følelser og ender med at bebrejde din mor. På samme må fortæller medierne bistået af deres mange udvalgte eksperter og debattører kun om hvorledes ‘vi’ har svigtet, ikke været kulturelt sensitive nok, ikke givet penge nok og selv startet det hele i flere omgange, fra korstogene henover kolonialismen til George Bush. Journalisterne har instinktivt internaliseret den fortælling.

Fortællingen om Køln nytårsnat blev hurtigt til alt muligt andet, men mest om os selv og vores forhold til racisme. Nathalie Ostrynski formulerede i Berlingske Tidende at “[k]vinderne i Køln oplevede nytårsnat det, som mange danske kvinder hver dag oplever“, Kenneth Reinnicke mente at vi beskrev ting forskelligt alt efter om det var dem eller os, der gjorde det samme: “Hvis det er Muhammed, er det æresdrab, og hvis det er Peter, har vi en tendens til at forklare det med depression.” Det samme budskab kom Ulla Thornemand med da hun mindede om at “Herhjemme kalder vi det drengestreger, når hvide unge drenge og fyre i flok, i folkeskolen og på andre uddannelsesinstitutioner, blufærdighedskrænker, sexchikanerer og sexforulemper piger.

Irene Manteufel, der samler “danske kvinders beretninger om hverdagssexismeadvarede om “at debatten ikke skal handle om etnicitet”.

Signe Wenneberg sagde i en ellers ganske indsigtsfuld kommentar i Berlingske Tidende at “Det var afrikanere i kulturchok“, når det nok snarer var tyskerne der fik sig et kulturchok. En Lotte Lund linkede “Apropos debatten om mænds vold og overgreb på kvinder - på tværs af kulturer”, til en artikel om voldtægter/krænkelser på Roskildefestivallen, der tilsyneladende er sexkrænkernes paradis. Rune Engelbrecht Larsen mente at “det blot ét af utallige eksempler på, hvordan alt for mange mænd i alle farver og af alle nationaliteter stadig har absurd vanskeligt ved forstå og respektere kvindelig ligeværd og integritet.” helt på linie med Henrik Marstal der mente at massevoldtægterne “er et problem, der snarere er knyttet til mænds seksuelle adfærd som sådan

Men der er en anden fortolkning, som poseuren Mads Holger var halvt inde på da han sagde at overfaldene var en konsekvens af “vores egen kulturs totale fravær af maskulinitet” har mødt indvandrerne med “kvindagtighed“. Nemlig og i samme ånd er islam opkogt i forventning om en forestående sejr og Køln var et signal til den muslimske verden, skriver Stephen Brown i Frontpage Magazine

“The Cathedral was being used as background scenery, which reflects still other messages: that it concerns a strike against the culture of the European city as a meeting place and individual freedom, and that the attack was directed against the (Catholic) Church …,” Rossman states.

Besides acts of sexual and religious terrorism meant to break down German society, the attacks against the women and the cathedral were also a show of Islamic power. Women and religious minorities can be terrorised by Muslim mobs just like in Islamic countries. Their reach is growing.

But perhaps the most important message the New Year’s Eve events were meant to convey was directed at Muslims living in Germany and the Islamic world. And the message is that Germany cannot protect either its women or its religion. It is weak.

In fact, German Christians are so feeble that one of their greatest cathedrals suffered a humiliating attack during a religious service, presided over by one of Germany’s highest churchmen, without consequences. And by publicly molesting such large numbers of infidel women so boldly and brazenly without retaliation, German men are shown as equally weak.

But, just as important, the women’s molestation without retaliation showed that German men were also without ‘honour’. And honour is an esteemed concept among Muslim men, who kill female family members for the slightest sexual impropriety, real or imagined, to restore their ‘honour’.As a result of this feebleness and lack of honour, Germany deserves and is ready for conquest.

It is easy pickings.

Det var det muslimske forår, der sprang ud nytårs nat.

Pressen vælger gode historier fra

Det er i Vesten almindeligt at betragte vores medier, som værende mere pålidelige end ikke-vestlig medier. Russiske medier har en klar pro-russisk dagsorden og der er ingen reel markeds- eller demokratisk kontrol. Og sådan er det sikkert også i resten af den gamle østblok, hvor halvfascister som Victor Orban regerer og Romaer forfølges og bøsser ikke kan gifte sig. De vestlige medier selv er helt sikre på deres egen fortræffelighed. Og sådan var det også engang. Vesten var det eneste sted hvor der herskede frihed. Men det er længe siden.

En gruppe kristne kaste overbord til druknedøden af vrede muslimer, kunne man læse. Men det fik ingen konsekvenser for dækningen og vinklingen. Tyskland sorterer migranterne efter religion og etnicitet, ellers kommer de op at slås. Eller rettere, ellers overfalder muslimer ikke-muslimer og nogen gange også hinanden. Ingen synes at bekymre sig for, hvad perspektivet er i det, især hvis de skal herind at bo. Der advokeres for et multietnisk samfund, mens folk flygter fra sekterisk vold. De fleste migranter er ikke fra Syrien, men vinklen er stadig at alle er flygtninge fra krig. Ingen spørger hvilke af de stridende parter migranter støtter hvem de flygter fra eller synes at kere sig over om det overhovedet er relevant. Der er heller ikke noget perspektiv i at de fleste er mænd i den våbenføre alder. Da disse unge mænd aggressivt angreb grænsevagter i Balkan og Slovenien og hvor som helst, blev det til historier om hvorledes kvinder og børn fik tæsk. En migrant kastede brutalt sin kone med et spædbarn i favnen ned på togskinnerne og hoppede derpå selv ned over hende, mens han skreg at han hellere vil have sin og sin families død end ikke at komme til Tyskland - pressen viser at han ligger på togskinner med sin kone og barn mens grænsevagter står tæt omkring, som var det dem, der var de skyldige. Afrikanske migranter stormer spanske grænsehegn og som de løber gennem gaderne for første gang i det forjættede kristne land råber de Allahu Akbar - og ingen spørger hvad de mon mener med det.

Norsk politi fandt billeder af henrettelser og IS-falg hos flygtninge” skrev flere aviser. Det er politiet, der oplyser om deres fund og medierne refererer selvfølgelig politiet. Men så sker der ikke mere. Danske medier har ikke spurgt dansk politi om de har gjort lignende opdagelser. Hvad med andre lande? “Det, som ser alarmerende ud, kan have andre forklaringer end støtte til terrororganisationer” citerer man en leder for den norske sikkerhedstjeneste og så er det vel godt nok. Det kan betyde så meget, ja, men det kan også betyde at vi ikke ved, hvor mange tusind terrorister, og deres endnu flere sympatisører, der lukkes ind.

Og hvis ikke man vil foretage sin egen research, så kan man vel i det mindste vil ungarsk TVs tidligere reportage, hvor man ikke blot ser indholdet, men også har allieret sig med glimrende psykologer til at tolke billederne. Billederne viser unge mænd, der gennem gensidige prygl, gør sig kampklar til at modstå og håndtere smerte, når de når Europa. Og flere billeder af migranter, der går forbi TV stationernes kameraer og gestikulerer en halshugning så selv ikke eksperter burde være i tvivl om, hvad det mon kunne betyde.

En ungarsk journalist spænder ben for en løbende migrant med et barn i favnen. Skandale og det selv om det viser sig at migranten var jihad sympatisør - what are the odds? - forbliver den del af historien kun på blogs og sociale medier. Finsk TV bringer rørende historier fra flygtninge, der fortæller om deres situation. En af flygtningene har ladet sig fotografere før, back in the old country og genkendes, som MVLEHTI fortæller

terrorist-i-tv

terrorist-fra-tv-med-afhugget-hoved

What are the odds? (Billedet af terroristen med det afhuggede hoved har i øvrigt i målene 500-666 - what are the odds?). Hvorfor er det ikke en historie? Jeg sidder og tænker på at vi, eller i hvert fald jeg, er blevet så vant til denne parallelverden, mellem, hvad man selv kan finde på nettet, Youtube, Facebook og flere men mindre fremragende medier, blogs og hjemmesider og så den verden, der tegnes i de danske medier på statsstøtte, at jeg slet ikke stiller spørgsmål til, hvorfor danske medier, ja vestlige medier i det hele taget, slet ikke fokuserer på historier om hvem flygtningene egentlig er, hvad de kommer for og hvad vi allerede kan se af vold og trusler.

Det er jo gode og opsigtsvækkende historier. Men journalisterne vælger at messe kedelige fortællinger om uverificerbare , som kun venstrefløjen ser og det er kun af ren moralsk pligtskyldighed. Journalister har traditionelt set det som et kald at bringe sandheden for en dag. Siden har de set det som et kald at får sandheden til at ændre verden til det bedre. Siden har de retfærdiggjort den gode historie over sandheden, hvis blot den ændrede verden til det bedre. I dag caster de mest sig selv, mest som en dårlig vane, i det selvbillede de har arvet af at se Alle Præsidentens Mænd og Kinasyndromet med det samme skurkebillede af banditter i habitter og det samme billede af ofrenes forhutlede fremtoning. Det er faktisk mageløst at så mange journalister kan være så moralsk ukorrumperede i deres moralske kald, at deres fag ikke lokke med penge og prestige, hvis blot de opfylder fagets mindstekrav. At så mange journalister kollektivt ser helt bort fra indlysende gode historier, fordi de hellere selv vil være gode.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress