Robert Spencer om hvorvidt Islamisk Stat er islamisk

Kort dokumentar om Obamas forhold til Israel

Obama kan ikke lide Israel, det er næppe nogen hemmelighed.

Islam udfolder sig i Levanten

En far stener sin datter til døde i Levanten efter islams foreskrifter.

Robert Spencer pointerer normaliteten

Stoning adulterers is not “extremist”; it is Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.82.816)

“Allah’s Apostle” is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari 4.56.829)

I Kobanes ruiner fandt man det måske mest foruroligende billede til dato på en død gedekneppers mobiltelefon

0011699707

Raymond Ibrahim skriver i Middle East Forum om sexslaver i islam

During Muhammad’s jihad on the Jews of Khaybar, he took for himself from among the spoils of war one young woman, a teenager, Safiya bint Huyay, after hearing of her beauty. (Earlier the prophet had bestowed her on another Muslim jihadi, but when rumor of her beauty reached him, the prophet reneged and took her for himself.)

Muhammad “married” Safiya hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death in order to reveal hidden treasure. And before this, the prophet’s jihadis slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.

While Islamic apologists have long tried to justify this account—often by saying that Muhammad gave her the honor of “marriage” as opposed to being a concubine and that she opted to convert to Islam—they habitually fail to cite what Islamic sources record, namely Baladhuri’s ninth century Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (”Book of Conquests”).

According to this narrative, after the death of Muhammad, Safiya confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.

So there it is. Muhammad seized for himself as rightfully earned booty (or ghanima) a young woman; he took her after killing everyone dear to her—husband, father, brothers, etc.

And, according to authoritative Islamic sources, she hated him for it.

If that is not rape, what is?

Islam er, som islam er og nu gives hele pakken.

Vi skal tage os i agt, for de sorte vinder terræn

Ordene er Klaus Rifbjergs og de er hans måske let vildledende overskrift på hans seneste opkast i Politiken.

På et tidspunk, hvor Politiken finder det passende at gøre Søren Krarup til en af det tyvende århundredes store (konservative) tænkere og blæser hans mugne fjæs op både på forsiden og inde i bladet, hvor Rune Lykkeberg træder sin sædvanlige træskodans med ét skridt frem og to tilbage, kan det måske være på sin plads at pege på et værk, der ikke har nogen direkte forbindelse til den jammerlige drejning i dansk åndsliv, hvor også Information giver spalteplads til en nedgroet negl som Mikael Jalving til at underholde de arme læsere med sin sikre overbevisning om, at typer som Ralf Pittelkow og Karen Jespersen en dag vil blive hyldet og få satisfaktion for al den tort og svie, de har måttet døje for deres kulsorte reaktion og udtalte fremmedhad.

Fra denne lange sætning af umotiveret galde glider Rifbjerg henover “’The Mexican Suitcase’, der rummer flere tusind genfundne negativer af Robert Capas, Gerda Taros og Chims (David Seymours) billedreportager fra den spanske borgerkrig” til en historielektion

Den legale spanske regering og alle, der sluttede op om den, kæmpede for demokratiet mod nazismen. Og blev totalt svigtet af demokratiet.

Der var ingen hjælp at hente, hverken fra England eller USA eller Frankrig. Til gengæld holdt det nazistiske Tyskland-Italien sig ikke tilbage, men forsynede Franco med alt det dræbende isenkram, han havde brug for. Hvilket betød, at slaget var tabt, før det var begyndt, og vejen til Anden verdenskrig banet.

Man kunne derfor tro at Rifbjerg var glad for at vi idag engagerer os sammen med de legale regeringer i Syrien og Irak med bombninger suppleret med våben og ekspertise. Men nej, Rifbjerg har en anden konklusion på demokratiernes svigt af Spanien

Ganske vist er vi nu igen i krig og bomber til højre og venstre i demokratiets navn og mod den rædselsfulde terror, som vi tror kan udryddes med TNT, men avler ti ny terrorister for hver én, vi får taget livet af.

Og mere behøver man ikke gøre ud af at opretholde illusionen om en rød tråd. For uanset hvad hænger Rifbjergs fjender Franco, ISIS og Søren Krarup sammen således

Også vi kan ende på landevejen med vores bylter og vores rædsel, hvis vi lader os sluge af den bekvemme tanke, at Vorherre ordner det hele, og hvis ikke han så Søren Krarup.

Ak ja, Rifbjerg er en færdig mand. Men tilbage til overskriften, for  jeg er enig; vi skal sandelig tage os iagt, de sorte vinder nemlig terræn. Forbered dem på en uhyggelig video

Hvad er forskellen mon?

Civile ofre kan ikke undgås, når danske kampfly kaster bomber mod Islamisk Stat i Irak, erkender udenrigsminister Martin Lidegaard. Men endnu flere uskyldige irakere vil blive dræbt, hvis vi lader være med at bombe, mener han.

Og han er Danmarks justitsminister Martin Lidegaard der taler salvelsesfuldt om sin egen samvittighed til Politiken. Tidligere sagde han således

- Jeg må sige, at vi er kommet i den situation, at det er helt uacceptabelt, der bliver slået så mange civile ihjel. Det er ude af proportioner, og det må stoppe, siger Martin Lidegaard til TV2 Nyhederne.

Dengang var han som mange muslimer og arabere og Obama sur over at jødestaten Israel forsvarede sig selv. Israel var som bekendt juridisk i sin gode ret til selvforsvar, men det er Danmark til gengæld ikke når det handler om at bombe frit i Levanten, som vi gør, skriver Jyllands-Posten

Luftangreb i Syrien er et klart brud på folkeretten, lyder det fra militærekspert.

Syrien blev informeret.

Men landet har ikke sagt god for de luftangreb, som en koalition bestående af USA, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og De Arabiske Emirater foretog i landet tirsdag.

Ej heller har det borgerkrigshærgede Syrien bedt om hjælp til at bekæmpe Islamisk Stat (IS) i landet.

Og endelig har FN’s Sikkerhedsråd ikke givet mandat til det.

Derfor var der tale om brud på folkeretten, da USA og dets partnere foretog mindst 50 luftangreb i de syriske provinser Raqqa og Deir al-Zor.

Det siger major ved Forsvarsakademiet Lars Cramer-Larsen.

“Det er et brud på folkeretten at angribe et andet land, hvis ikke det land har inviteret til at få hjælp. Og uanset hvor meget præsident Bashar al-Assad er en krigsforbryder, så er han jo stadig i folkeretlig forstand den legtime magthaver i Syrien, og den syriske regering har ikke inviteret koalitionen til at angribe,”

Israel gjorde sig som bekendt historisk store anstrengelser for at undgå de civile tab som Hamas ellers fristede til overmåde med at sikre. Da vi ikke har støvler på jorden, som det nu hedder og ingen gode efterretninger andet end, hvad vores oppustede godhed ellers driver os til må vi jo stole på at amerikanerne ved hvad de gør.

Det gør jeg gerne, det er i hvert fald underholdende.

Den arabiske verden knækker under vægten af kognitiv dissonans

Der har den seneste tid været flere gode artikler om den arabiske verdens store krise. Det man optimistisk kaldte for et forår har helt mistet en årstidbetegnelse thi en sådan vil ikke være dækkende. En vinter er jo kun en periode, men flere ser ikke nogen umiddelbar ende på den spiral af kaos, som araberne ser ud til at blive trukket ned i. Den libanesiske Hisham Melhem skrev den glimrende artikel Barbarians Within Our Gates for Politico Magazine

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism—the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition—than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays—all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms. With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf—which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos—and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

No one paradigm or one theory can explain what went wrong in the Arab world in the last century. There is no obvious set of reasons for the colossal failures of all the ideologies and political movements that swept the Arab region: Arab nationalism, in its Baathist and Nasserite forms; various Islamist movements; Arab socialism; the rentier state and rapacious monopolies, leaving in their wake a string of broken societies. No one theory can explain the marginalization of Egypt, once the center of political and cultural gravity in the Arab East, and its brief and tumultuous experimentation with peaceful political change before it reverted back to military rule.

Nor is the notion of “ancient sectarian hatreds” adequate to explain the frightening reality that along a front stretching from Basra at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Beirut on the Mediterranean there exists an almost continuous bloodletting between Sunni and Shia—the public manifestation of an epic geopolitical battle for power and control pitting Iran, the Shia powerhouse, against Saudi Arabia, the Sunni powerhouse, and their proxies.

There is no one single overarching explanation for that tapestry of horrors in Syria and Iraq, where in the last five years more than a quarter of a million people perished, where famed cities like Aleppo, Homs and Mosul were visited by the modern terror of Assad’s chemical weapons and the brutal violence of the Islamic State. How could Syria tear itself apart and become—like Spain in the 1930s—the arena for Arabs and Muslims to re-fight their old civil wars? The war waged by the Syrian regime against civilians in opposition areas combined the use of Scud missiles, anti-personnel barrel bombs as well as medieval tactics against towns and neighborhoods such as siege and starvation. For the first time since the First World War, Syrians were dying of malnutrition and hunger.

(…)

A byproduct of the depredation of the national security state and resurgent Islamism has been the slow death of the cosmopolitanism that distinguished great Middle Eastern cities like Alexandria, Beirut, Cairo and Damascus. Alexandria was once a center of learning and multicultural delights (by night, Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, “it was a sort of reminiscence of Paris”). Today Alexandria is a hotbed of political Islam, now that the once large Greek-Egyptian community has fled along with the other non-Arab and non-Muslim communities. Beirut, once the most liberal city in the Levant, is struggling to maintain a modicum of openness and tolerance while being pushed by Hezbollah to become a Tehran on the Med. Over the last few decades, Islamists across the region have encouraged—and pressured—women to wear veils, men to show signs of religiosity, and subtly and not-so-subtly intimidated non-conformist intellectuals and artists. Egypt today is bereft of good universities and research centers, while publishing unreadable newspapers peddling xenophobia and hyper-nationalism. Cairo no longer produces the kind of daring and creative cinema that pioneers like the critically acclaimed director Youssef Chahine made for more than 60 years. Egyptian society today cannot tolerate a literary and intellectual figure like Taha Hussein, who towered over Arab intellectual life from the 1920s until his death in 1973, because of his skepticism about Islam. Egyptian society cannot reconcile itself today to the great diva Asmahan (1917-1944) singing to her lover that “my soul, my heart, and my body are in your hand.” In the Egypt of today, a chanteuse like Asmahan would be hounded and banished from the country.

***

The jihadists of the Islamic State, in other words, did not emerge from nowhere. They climbed out of a rotting, empty hulk—what was left of a broken-down civilization. They are a gruesome manifestation of a deeper malady afflicting Arab political culture, which was stagnant, repressive and patriarchal after the decades of authoritarian rule that led to the disastrous defeat in the 1967 war with Israel. That defeat sounded the death knell of Arab nationalism and the resurgence of political Islam, which projected itself as the alternative to the more secular ideologies that had dominated the Arab republics since the Second World War. If Arab decline was the problem, then “Islam is the solution,” the Islamists said—and they believed it.

At their core, both political currents—Arab nationalism and Islamism—are driven by atavistic impulses and a regressive outlook on life that is grounded in a mostly mythologized past. Many Islamists, including Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (the wellspring of such groups)—whether they say it explicitly or hint at it—are still on a ceaseless quest to resurrect the old Ottoman Caliphate. Still more radical types—the Salafists—yearn for a return to the puritanical days of Prophet Muhammad and his companions. For most Islamists, democracy means only majoritarian rule, and the rule of sharia law, which codifies gender inequality and discrimination against non-Muslims.

And let’s face the grim truth: There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just or a practitioner of good governance.

Men det er Raymond Ibrahims fremragende artikel Islams Protestant Reformation fra Juni måned for Frontpage Magazine, som leverer en en dyster forklaring for hele den muslimske verden, nemlig at den er ved at knække over under presset for sin egen kognitive dissonans.

Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).

Jalving skrev under blandt andet denne inspiration den glimrende advarsel til Vesten at nissen flytter med i Efter Os Syndfloden.

Men nu ser vi den. Vi ser, at det hele er noget lort på de kanter. Og vi ser noget andet og endnu værre – for os: At vi ikke evner at forvare os mod opløsningen af den arabiske civilisation. Deres ødelæggelse kan blive vores ødelæggelse. Vi importerer den nemlig.

Her tænker jeg ikke kun på de varme lande som arnested for radikalisme og jihad. Det er næsten for banalt, her er dagens episode. Næ, jeg tænker naturligvis også på den voksende strøm af flygtninge og asylansøgere, der vandrer mod Europa – og for de flestes vedkommende – kommer frem og opnår en eller anden ret til at være her – på de europæiske skatteyderes regning.

(…)

Hvem skal redde araberne fra sig selv?

Hvorfor peger flaskehalsen på os? Hvorfor er det ikke kinesernes opgave, de er trods alt de kommende, globale magthavere? Hvorfor kigger ingen på Latinamerikas ansvar, de vil for helvede også gerne handle med araberne? Hvorfor kan Putin køre friløb? Og mere graverende: Hvorfor er det ikke araberne, der løser arabernes selvskabte problemer?

Du ved godt hvorfor. Det er kun i Vesten, at vi har fået den tro, at vi og ingen andre kan løse alverdens problemer lige fra nødhjælp til geopolitik. Det er os, dvs. vores nedarvede humanisme, der i generationer har ledt Vesten på vildspor og skabt en grænseløs, universel samvittighed hinsides alle sociale konsekvenser i hjemlandene og gjort menneskerettighedskonventioner til guddommelige anvisninger.

Dér ligger hunden begravet, og det er på tide at sige det ligeud, som det er: Det er os selv, ikke araberne, der har gjort den kroniske arabiske borgerkrig til USA’s, Storbritanniens, Australiens, Canadas, Hollands, Sveriges og Danmarks evige problem. Vi vil og skal hjælpe, koste hvad det koste vil, herunder vores egen deroute.

Deroute er egentlig for venligt et udtryk. Det er ikke alene den arabiske civilisation, der forsvinder for øjnene af os, men tillige vores egen kultur, der synker sammen i bestræbelsen på at spille Jesus, imens vi tillader, at arabere, der tydeligvis ikke vil Danmark eller det land, der har givet dem eller deres forældre en ny chance, huserer som grever og baroner på gader og stræder og opfører sig, som var de herrer i vores hus.

Mærk dig disse dage, det er dage, der forandrer verden, herunder din egen. Tiderne skifter, jeg siger det bare.

Ingen milde sæder kommer af disse tiders skiften dog.

Livet i Kalifatet

En kort rapportage om dagligdagen i Kalifatet.

Islamisk 30-års-krig eller 30 års islamisk krig?

Den arabisk muslimske verden ser ud til at bryde sammen i disse år. Ægyptens General El-Sissi er sikkert ganske sober når han påstår at han ved sit kup forhindrede Ægypten i at henfalde i en borgerkrig som den i Syrien-Irak. Men, hvis vi fokuserer på Syrien-Irak, hvad kan vi så alt andet lige se frem til? Richard Haas skrev i forrige måned i Project Syndicate at han kunne se en arabisk genopførsel af den europæiske Trediveårskrig

It is a region wracked by religious struggle between competing traditions of the faith. But the conflict is also between militants and moderates, fueled by neighboring rulers seeking to defend their interests and increase their influence. Conflicts take place within and between states; civil wars and proxy wars become impossible to distinguish. Governments often forfeit control to smaller groups – militias and the like – operating within and across borders. The loss of life is devastating, and millions are rendered homeless.

That could be a description of today’s Middle East. In fact, it describes Europe in the first half of the seventeenth century.

In the Middle East in 2011, change came after a humiliated Tunisian fruit vendor set himself alight in protest; in a matter of weeks, the region was aflame. In seventeenth-century Europe, a local religious uprising by Bohemian Protestants against the Catholic Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II triggered that era’s conflagration.

Protestants and Catholics alike turned for support to their co-religionists within the territories that would one day become Germany. Many of the era’s major powers, including Spain, France, Sweden, and Austria, were drawn in. The result was the Thirty Years’ War, the most violent and destructive episode in European history until the two world wars of the twentieth century.

There are obvious differences between the events of 1618-1648 in Europe and those of 2011-2014 in the Middle East. But the similarities are many – and sobering. Three and a half years after the dawn of the “Arab Spring,” there is a real possibility that we are witnessing the early phase of a prolonged, costly, and deadly struggle; as bad as things are, they could well become worse.

Analogien til Trediveårskrigen rummer en falsk præmis om en lighed mellem kristendommen og islam. Trediveårskrigen afgjorde et konkret forhold mellem protestantismen og katolicismen, der erkendte at der eksisterede liv udenfor Kirken. Og den etablerede staterne og sikrede religionsfriheden i en orden, der alt i alt holdt til Napoleonskrigene, hvor en ny moderne virkelighed opstod med nye konflikter. Og selvfølgelig nye krige. Krigen mellem sunnier og shiaer er ikke ny og hadet mellem de to samt til alt andet er en indgroet del af religionernes essens og selvforståelse. Og mere klart bliver det ikke når Haas fortsætter

Islam never experienced something akin to the Reformation in Europe; the lines between the sacred and the secular are unclear and contested.

Moreover, national identities often compete with – and are increasingly overwhelmed by – those stemming from religion, sect, and tribe.

Den fremvoksende islamisme er reformationen, det er det muslimske råb ‘ad fontes’, det er bevidstgjorte muslimers opgør med ulemaens traditionelle fortolkningsret; sole scriptura. Islam kræver verdensherredømme og kan ikke finde hvile blot ved tanken om at der eksisterer dissidenter et sted i verden. Hvis denne krig varer tredive år vil den ikke slutte med en westfalsk fred, men blot med udmattelse indtil næste omgang. Det er også David P Goldmans anke mod Haas, som han skriver i Middle East Forum. For Goldman er krigen i Mellemøsten et demografisk fænomen mere end et strategisk og eksemplerne er trediveårskrigeNE

Wars of this sort end when two generations of fighters are killed. They last for decades (as did the Peloponnesian War, the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars of the 20th century) because one kills off the fathers in the first half of the war, and the sons in the second.

This new Thirty Years War has its origins in a demographic peak and an economic trough. There are nearly 30 million young men aged 15 to 24 in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, a bulge generation produced by pre-modern fertility rates that prevailed a generation ago. But the region’s economies cannot support them. Syria does not have enough water to support an agricultural population, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of farmers into tent cities preceded its civil war. The West mistook the death spasms of a civilization for an “Arab Spring,” and its blunders channeled the youth bulge into a regional war.

The way to win such a war is by attrition, that is, by feeding into the meat-grinder a quarter to a third of the enemy’s available manpower. Once a sufficient number of those who wish to fight to the death have had the opportunity to do so, the war stops because there are insufficient recruits to fill the ranks. That is how Generals Grant and Sherman fought the American Civil War, and that is the indicated strategy in the Middle East today.

It is a horrible business.

(…)

Three million men will have to die before the butchery comes to an end. That is roughly the number of men who have nothing to go back to, and will fight to the death rather than surrender.

Goldman fortsætter med kontrafaktiske analyser man kan nørde lidt med, hvis man er til den slags. Læsværdig er den i hvert fald.

Åh, de jøder

Så det kan ikke overraske, hvad de er i stand til at arrangere

Krigen mod islam bliver sværere at benægte

Vi har vænnet os til det gennem mange år med muslimsk terror. Hver gang muslimer begår grusomheder i islams navn mod tilfældige mennesker rundt omkring på kloden føler vores kære ledere sig kaldet til islam, eller i det mindste kaldet til at redde islams anseelse. Om og om igen.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Osv, osv. Man kan kun bortforklare en trend så mange gange.

Islam beskrives i negationer, når ikke man kan påstå at det er fredens religion, hvilket Bush var slem til, skriver Jonah Goldberg. Og man må give Goldberg ret i, at muslimer, der kan deres koran og deres profets perfekte forbillede, opretter en islamisk stat, styret af sharia med en kalif på toppen jo så heller ikke ligefrem er lutherdom, katoliscisme eller Vennernes Religiøse Samfund. Særligt fordummende finder jeg Obamas truisme med at ingen religion godkender drab på uskyldige. Hvad er skyld? Som en terrorist på Achille Lauro svarede svarede passagerene da de gik i forbøn for en invalid jødisk amerikaner, der skulle myrdes “I siger han er uskyldig - uskyldig i hvad?”. I islam er alle skyldige, der ikke er de rette muslimer. Og mod de skyldige bedriver man Jihad, som Denis MacEoin beskriver for Gatestone Institute

There are estimates of some 164 jihad verses in the Qur’an. And those do not include innumerable passages commanding or describing holy war in the Hadith, or the prophet’s biography. A few examples (translations by the author) include:

“Let those who sell this world’s life for the hereafter fight in the way of God. For whoever fights in the way of God, whether he is killed or lives victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” 4: 74

“I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.” 8:12

“Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them, take them captives and besiege them, and waylay them by setting ambushes.” 9:5

Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in a “moderate” manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur’an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.

The Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation — something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad’s career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.

One problem is that no one can change the Qur’an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind. Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven — the “Mother of the Book,” much as Mary is the Mother of Christ — that is the eternal original of the Qur’an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur’an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.

Det var i øvrigt hele baladen om De Sataniske Vers, selv ideen om at Fanden kunne have haft held til at ændre blot en lille smule i indholdet. Det hedder jo ikke Slutstenen og det Endelige Segl for ingenting.

Muslimer fra nær og fjern valfarter til Syrien og Irak for at være med. Et stk. kvindeligt sundhedspersonale med engelsk pas fremviser stolt et afhugget hoved, en gangster fra Danmark, en lærer fra Belgien, to teenagepiger på kneppetur fra Østrig, historierne mange, statistikkerne i udvikling. Kalifatet (ISIS, ISIL, IS, kært barn…) er inde i et halshugningmode som de stolt fremviser for verden. Og Raymond Ibrahim fortæller i Frontpage Magazine om denne evige muslimske glæde ved grusomhed

Thus we come to the following account concerning the slaughter of ‘Amr bin Hisham, a pagan Arab chieftain originally  known as “Abu Hakim” (Father of Wisdom) until Muhammad dubbed him “Abu Jahl” (Father of Stupidity) for his staunch opposition to Islam.

After ‘Amr was mortally wounded by a new convert to Islam during the Battle of Badr, Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, a close companion of Muhammad, saw the “infidel” chieftain collapsed on the ground.  So he went to him and started abusing him.  Among other things, Abdullah grabbed and pulled ‘Amr’s beard and stood in triumph on the dying man’s chest.

According to Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya (“The Beginning and the End”), Ibn Kathir’s authoritiative history of Islam, “After that, he [Abdullah] cut his [‘Amr’s] head off and bore it till he placed it between the hands of the Prophet. Thus did Allah heal the hearts of the believers with it.”

This, then, is the true significance of Koran 9:14-15: “Fight them, Allah will torment them with your hands [mortally wounding and eventually decapitating ‘Amr], humiliate them [pulling his beard], empower you over them [standing atop him], and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts [at the sight of his decapitated head].”

The logic here is that, pious Muslims are so full of zeal for Allah’s cause that the only way their inflamed hearts can be at rest is to see those who oppose Allah and his prophet utterly crushed—humiliated, mutilated, decapitated.  Then the hearts of the believers can be at ease and “healed.”

Danmark er også i krig med islam og det er den radikale udenrigsminister, der har erklæret det. Ja, man kan kalde det så meget andet end krig siger han og så er det ligesom en bagdør for radikal selvopfattelse når regningen skal betales. Men nu har de erklæret ISIS krig og de kan hoppe og danse alt hvad de vil og påstå at ISIS ikke islam. Men det er de mange sunnimuslimer ligeglade med, de kalder det kalifatet og de noterer sig at Danmark har erklæret det krig. Ikke et sekulært korrupt arabisk regime eller en perifær terrororganisation, men et genuint forsøg på et sunnimuslimsk kalifat. Det er, hvad Danmark reelt er gået i krig mod.

Og det er herligt for nu slutter denne falske krig og danskerne kan endelig få syn for sagn. Javist kommer der terror herhjemme, javist vil mennesker dø. Men det ville ske under alle omstændigheder, blot senere og mere intenst jo længere vi venter.

Kalifatet er et banesår for venstrefløjens islamopfattelse. Et større terrorkomplot er blevet forhindret ved en massiv politiaktion i Australien og Politikens overskrift var “Australsk politi slår til i kæmpe anti-terroraktion”. Ingen lyst til at afsløre gerningsmændene så tidligt. Men heller ingen grund. Ingen, end ikke Carsten Jenen, Anders Jerichow, bror Lidegaard eller nogle af deres læsere er i tvivl om, hvad den historie drejer sig om. Ingen er i tvivl om at der nu igen skal politikere på banen til at forklare at også disse engagerede muslimer, der kan koranen og Muhammeds forbillede udenad har misforstået det hele på nøjagtig samme måde som alle de andre muslimer hele tiden misforstår koranen..

Islam har mange sider

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Irak, Jihad, Kalifatet, Muslimer, Sharia, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on September 2, 2014 at 8:48 am

Nogle horror, andre depravation.

Daily Beast beskriver den grusomme islamiske virkelighed

Thousands of Iraq’s Yazidis, driven from their homes by ISIS and trapped in the desperate siege of Mt. Sinjar, have captured the world’s attention and received some relief from U.S. airstrikes and humanitarian aid. But hundreds of Yazidi women taken by ISIS and held in a secret prison where they have been raped and sold off like property are facing an equally dire fate.

Survivors who managed to escape from ISIS say the women held in its prison in Mosul face two fates: Those who convert to Islam are sold as brides to Islamist fighters for prices as low as $25, and ranging up to $150. Those who do not convert face daily rape and a slow death.

Accounts of the prison have come from women who managed to hide their cellular phones, calling relatives to describe their plight. Some imprisoned women have been forced by militants to call their families. The mother of one woman still held captive told The Daily Beast about the call she received from her daughter. She was forced to listen as her daughter detailed being raped by dozens of men over the course of a few hours. Still other women testified that multiple children had been born under these conditions, with the newborns ripped away from their mother’s arms to fates unknown.

Jeg har intet at sige.

Det muslimske sind

Jeg har undgået at høre de sædvanlige forklaringer på, hvorfor unge mænd (muslimer) fra Vesten drages af ekstremisme (islam) og kan finde på at drage i hellig krig (jihad) i Syrien og Irak. Det afhænger ikke af sociale eller uddannelsesmæssige forhold, ej heller af niveauet af muslimskhed i opvæksten. Det handler blot om at være muslim og kæmpe for islam, som man kan læse ud af en rimeligt serøs artikel (fra fremtiden) i Economist

Western fighters often seem to jump at the chance to take part in a fight or help build a new Islamic state. The Soufan Group, a New York-based intelligence outfit, reckons that by the end of May as many as 12,000 fighters from 81 nations had joined the fray, among them some 3,000 from the West (see chart). The number today is likely to be a lot higher. Since IS declared a caliphate on June 29th, recruitment has surged. Syria has drawn in fighters faster than in any past conflict, including the Afghan war in the 1980s or Iraq after the Americans invaded in 2003.

The beheading on or around August 19th of James Foley, an American journalist, by a hooded fighter with a London accent, has put a spotlight on Britain. In the 1990s London was a refuge for many extremists, including many Muslim ones. Radical preachers were free to spout hate. Britain remains in many ways the centre of gravity for European jihadist networks, says Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. “The radical community in Britain is still exporting ideas and methods.”

While the overwhelming majority of foreign fighters in Syria are Arabs, Britons make up one of the biggest groups of Western fighters. But Belgians, Danes and others have a higher rate per person (see left-hand chart above). France, which has tighter laws against extremism, has also seen more of its citizens go off to wage jihad.

(…)

IS is not the only group Westerners join, but it is the most appealing thanks to its global outlook, which includes spreading the caliphate across the world, to its attempts to implement immediate sharia law—and to the glow of its military success.

(…)

Those who talked of defending Syrians now deny that the land belongs to the locals, says Shiraz Maher of ICSR. “Bilad al-Sham”, or Greater Syria, has a special status in Islam because it appears in end-of-time prophecies. It belongs to Allah, fighters declare. But what if Syrians do not want Islamic law? “It’s not up to them, because it’s for Islam to implement Islamic rule,” says the European fighter who says he left his home country because it was not Islamic enough. He says he wants to “educate rather than behead Syrians”.

(…)

Most of IS’s ideas and all of its gorier methods are rejected by most Muslims, who see the group simply as criminal. But it does draw on Islamic theology, arguing—for instance—that non-Muslims should pay jizya, a special tax.

Hvad muslimer tænker (eller, hvad journalisten ønsker de tænker) er som sagt uden betydning: “It’s not up to them, because it’s for Islam to implement Islamic rule”.

Many say they feel more comfortable in a country where the way of life is Islamic—even if not yet Islamic enough—and have no plans to leave or carry out attacks elsewhere. “I am much happier here—got peace of mind,” says the European fighter.

But others who have gone to Syria to battle against Mr Assad have become disillusioned, says Mr Neumann. They worry about infighting and about killing other Muslims. “This is not what we came for,” they tell him.

Der er selvfølgelig variationer i antallet af muslimer fra forskellige lande og retninger og etniciteter som der også er det i bevæggrundende. Og det er hvad der er tale om, variationer, som der altid vil være når der er tale om mennesker. Men variationerne er over et tema, islam, og trenden er klar. Det er en folkelig bevægelse. Man har råbt ad fontes og uagtet hvad en spinkelt flertal måtte mene er almindelig fornuft, som Vesten har inspireret til så er islam islam og man må tage hele pakken - det er ikke op til en selv.

Men variationerne vil være halmstrå til allehånde bortforklaringer om at det intet har med islam at gøre (som jeg lige hørte David Cameron gentage i TV - forstår politikerne vitterligt ikke at de udhuler deres påstand når de tvinges til at slå den fast igen og igen og igen?), at vi har en ansvar og derfor også evnen til at ændre, hvad der ikke behøver at være sådan. Det er ikke monstre, der tager kravet om jihad alvorligt, det er almindelige mennesker, der er muslimer. Som regnvejr reducerer antallet af demonstranter, således betyder faciliteterne også noget for, hvilke kampe man vælger at tage

But junk food is in ample supply, tweets a Swedish fighter, more happily. And there is a lot of time, sometimes days on end, for “chilling”, says the European fighter on Kik, a smartphone messaging app. That is when he makes “a normal-life day: washing clothes, cleaning the house, training, buying stuff”. Thanks to satellite internet connections, the continuing flow of goods into the country and the relatively decent level of development compared with elsewhere in the region, Syria is a long way from the hardship of Afghanistan’s mountains. Last year, to attract others to come, jihadists tweeted pictures with the hashtag “FiveStarJihad”.

Kedsomhed nævnes også som en del af forklaringen, men det kan kun påvirke variationen (hvorfor keder muslimer sig så ekstremt?)

More plausible explanations are the desire to escape the ennui of home and to find an identity. “Some individuals are drawn out there because there is not a lot going on in their own lives,” says Raffaello Pantucci, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think-tank. Images of combatants playing snooker, eating sweets and splashing in swimming pools have sometimes suggested that jihad was not unlike a student holiday, without the booze. For young men working in dead-end jobs in drab towns, the brotherhood, glory and guns seem thrilling. Many of Belgium’s fighters come from the dullest of cities, where radicals have concentrated their efforts to get recruits.

I sidste uge kunne man i Telegraph læse lidt nærmere om det sørgelige muslimske sind.

Choudhury, 31, who once ran a Muslim youth group, has been accused of being the ringleader, blamed for recruiting his friends. Others suggest he was simply a willing volunteer, a married father with two children, aged five and two, who was disaffected with life in Britain and desperate for a change of scene.

He had worked for an insurance company and then his local council as a racial awareness officer. But he was also a con artist, who had tricked his own family out of tens of thousands of pounds.

In 2010, he conned them out of £25,000, under the false pretence of needing treatment for cancer, to go to Singapore, not once but twice for surgery.

Once there, Choudhury, who was in perfect health, spent the money on prostitutes costing £200 a night, his penchant for young women revealed in text messages discovered by police.

Back in Portsmouth, he resumed the habit. He went on what he called “lads’ holidays” to Morocco three times and twice more to Singapore in 2011 and 2012, while at the same time downloading lectures by extremist preachers, extolling the virtues of an Islamic caliphate. To atone for his sins, Choudhury decided to embark on a holy war.

(…)

Jaman, a former worker in a Sky customer service call centre, whose parents owned an Indian takeaway restaurant in Portsmouth. He had studied at an Islamic boarding school in London, but life in a call centre proved boring and un-demanding. In May last year, he went to Syria and began recruiting his eager friends. In messages posted on Twitter and other internet sites, he painted a romanticised version of life on the front line, boasting of a “five star jihad”.

A month before he went, Choudhury asked Jaman what kind of gun he could buy for £50. “I had a hand gun but it’s not a great one. I bought it [for] $30,” replied Jaman in messages seized by British police while building up their case against Choudhury.

(…)

Once the men landed in Turkey, they were met by an intermediary who took them overland to the Syrian border. From there, they crossed the border easily and were driven straight to an abandoned hospital in Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, and scene of ferocious fighting.

“You could tell it was an abandoned building with broken pipes and wires,” Choudhury said at his trial at Kingston Crown Court. “No one spoke English. We had a meal of pasta and whilst eating, the table was shaking from the shelling.”

He said he was made to do the cooking and washing and look after children in a makeshift nursery. He had gone with grand ambitions.

In a series of tweets on September 16 and 17 last year, he wrote: “Leaving wife & kids behind for Jihad… All my life I strived to be something, someone, but isn’t being a Muslim something, someone. Isn’t being a Muslim the best thing ever?… The life of this world is nothing but a sweet poison that quenches the thirst of desire and drags the ungrateful soul deeper into Hell!” But in Syria he had become quickly disaffected.

Triste skæbner, nogle dør, andre kan ikke klare og nogle bliver sat til at skure lokummer. Og så vil man hellere bruge 2000 kroner på en luder men kun 500 kroner på et våben når man skal i krig. Men kedsomhed? Kone og børn og et produktivt liv tilfredsstiller ikke muslimen? Hvorfor?

Drømmen om jihad er depraveret ifølge Firatnews, der har set en dokumentar med det passende navn “Gang of Degenerates” (der skal tages forbehold for sandhedsværdien af det følgende, men måske er det historier om hvad man hygger sig med på en sådan “jihad student holiday” der drager?)

Attention was drawn in the documentary to the fact ISIS’s most effective weapon is its ability to create fear and terror by means of its methods, such as random killings regardless of gender, age, religion or ethnicity, its decapitations, rapes and burying people alive. The gangs do not feel a need to conceal what they have perpetrated, on the contrary they publish their atrocities so that more people can see them.

(…)

The most lurid part of the documentary was the part in which gang members gave their ‘marriage’ numbers in addition to their names and ISIS membership numbers. For instance, Cinêd Cemîl Silêman said his membership number was 333, while his marriage number was 583.

Mihemed Sebah Hebe? said his membership number was 500, and his marriage number was 400.

The ISIS members admitted that what they called ‘marriage’ was in fact rape. They said that every new member of the organisation was raped. The footage of the rape would be used as blackmail in the event of the new recruit refusing to participate in actions.

20-year-old Ferhan Salim Unûf Safên said he had been abducted by Silêman Kohnê, Ebû Qûteybe and Cinêd Cemîl and suffered multiple rapes. “I fainted. When I came round they told me: ‘you are now with ISIS in Jazaa.’ They told me to join. I said it was not possible. They did terrible thiungs to me. Things even the Americans didn’t do in Abu Graib. Things even the Israelis haven’t done to the Palestinians. I’m ashamed to explain them. There were 6 or 7 of them. Their faces were covered. They ‘married me’ about ten times!”

Ebdulkerîm Îbrahîm Bazo said ‘marriage’ was a rule in order to be a member of the organisation. Bazo said the ‘wedding’ was carried out like a ceremony, adding: “those who did it to me said I had gained morale and strength to fight.”

(…)

Bazo added that the footage recorded was used as blackmail. He said: “Silêman Kohnê took me to a village, where my ‘marriage’ was performed by Hecî Newaf Mele Mehmûd. They blindfolded me and carried out the wedding. About a fortnight later they came and said I had to participate in the organisation. I didn’t want to. But they had the footage. They threatened to show it to my family.”

Ehmed Hisên explained horrifying incidents; “I’m from the Sharbaniyan tribe in Malikiyê (Derik). Silêman Kohnê proposed that I join ISIS some time ago. But I told him I was newly married and did not want to be involved in such things. I was then abducted and drugged. When I came to I was in a room which stank terribly. They wouldn’t let me leave the room. Five people came in and told me I should join the organisation, I refused. Then they tortured me. They extinguished cigarettes on my body. Such things were not done to Iraqis at Guantanamo. You would think I was an infidel. They blindfolded and stripped me. They ‘married’ me 15 times. Then they washed my head and put cologne on me. They told me no one could join ISIS without being married. Then they recited very strange verses of the Quran. As they spoke I imagined images of severed heads. They spoke academic Arabic.”

Måske optræder serierøvpuling ikke ved ISIS jobsamtaler, men groteskheder er der nok af

Venstrefløjen plaget af uerkendt indsigt

Dansk Folkepartis Søren Espersen mener ifølge Information at “Det var en fejl at invadere Irak og styrte landets diktator, Saddam Hussein”

»Saddam Hussein er i forhold til det her langt at foretrække. Men det er altid et spørgsmål om, at mellem to onder vælger man det mindste. Det er ikke, fordi jeg holder af Saddam Hussein. Men det er så langt at foretrække, at han sad i Baghdad i dag end de andre,« siger Dansk Folkepartis udenrigsordfører, som tidligere også har fortrudt til sin støtte til interventionen i Libyen.

Højrefløjen må leve med at de nok foretog et konkret fejlskøn da de væltede Saddam og troede at de kunne hjælpe arabiske muslimer ind i demokratiets lyksaligheder. Det var en konkret fejl i en konkret situation. Men for venstrefløjen tegner der sig en erkendelse der kan true deres verdensbillede. Om man skulle have invaderet Irak eller ej så er de neokonservatives optimistiske eksperiment for alle til skue. Nogle kulturer er blot ikke til at redde. Nogle kulturer vil ikke det bedste for dem selv eller for deres børn - og derfor vil de heller ikke os noget godt. Nogle kulturer kan kun håbe på en brutal tyran der kan holde de folkelige grusonheder i ave.

»Jeg kan ikke følge Espersen i, at valget står mellem diktatorer eller kaos. Den præmis accepterer jeg ikke. Når jeg for eksempel kigger på Tunesien – og andre lande som har været gennem en demokratisk proces – så er det rigtigt, at det aldrig er nogen enkel proces. Nogle steder er der kaotiske tilstande. Men det er jo ikke, fordi de lande er begyndt at forfølge demokratiske drømme og mål. Det skyldes, at der er meget, meget stærke kræfter – som vil være der under alle omstændigheder – der er interesseret i at fremme interne modsætninger mellem shia- og sunnimuslimer,« siger Martin Lidegaard.

En anden af de daværende krigsmodstandere, SF’s daværende formand og nuværende forsvarsordfører, Holger K. Nielsen, er enig:

»Selv om Irak-krigen har været en katastrofe, så anerkender jeg ikke Søren Espersens præmis: Det var måden, man fjernede Saddam Hussein på, som vi var imod. Hvis USA i stedet havde brugt lige så mange penge på at støtte oppositionen til Saddam Hussein, som på krigen, kunne resultatet være blevet et andet.«

Men ak for d’herrer Lidegaard og Nielsen, det var ikke amerikanernes håndtering eller tonen i debatten, der fik Irak til at gå i opløsning, det var irakkerne selv. Nu, uden en tyran, overladt til sig selv og deres manglende evne til empati og selvkontrol, forfalder de til deres kulturelle og religiøse balast og slagter lystigt løs på hinanden.

Og denne frustration gentager sig i kommentarerne, der i sin særlige blanding af amerikanerhad, anti-kapitalisme, antisemitisme og konspirationsteorier fremtvinger indsigter, som endnu har til gode at blive taget alvorligt. En Carsten Hansen siger det resigneret ligeud

Kan det konstateres at repræsentanter fra den yderste venstrefløj er ganske enige med DF i denne sag.

At Mellemøstlige befolkninger er bedre tjent med at leve i diktaturer ?

Ja, det er den sørgelige sandhed. Frø af ugræs skal slås og holdes nede, som Brian Larsen tørt konstaterer ”Ja, Irak var langt bedre tjent med Saddam. Godt han kan indrømme det.” Carsten Hansen kommer dog igen med en nuancering

Men er det sandheden, at befolkningerne ikke ønsker demokrati ?
Eller er det ikke nærmere store mindretal blandt befolkningerne der er tilpas voldelige og sekteriske nok til, at de ikke ønsker at dele magten ?.
Mon ikke langt de de fleste almindelige mennesker ønsker fred og frihed ?

Her rammer Hansen noget centralt. Irak har haft høje stemmeprocenter og de første valg blev afholdt med stor succes trods trusler fra jihadister og gamle Saddam loyalister. Men det ændrer ikke ved regnestykket. Den muslimske og arabiske kultur fremmer ikke kollektiv mindelighed og tøjler ikke den mørkeste grusomhed. Dens ære-skam dynamik gør det til den største kæps rige, hvor brutalitet er det eneste argument der kan ræsonnere. En sørgelig præmis, men det er sandheden uagtet, hvad Lidegaard og Nielsen vil anderkende og acceptere. En anden kommenterer

Fejlen var at invasionen var “ulovlig”, og at man for at tilgodese Tyrkiets undertrykkelse af kurderne ikke opdelte Irak i 3 dele.

Ulovlig i citationstegn? Åbenbart, ja endda selvfølgelig, er succes monokulturel og fiasko multikulturel. Også Kjeld Hansen har et skarpt blik for kulturens betydning for et samfunds succes

For en gangsskyld vil jeg give DF ret. Hele mellemøsten har andre traditioner og værdier, samt en anden kulturel baggrund end det demokratiske vesten. Man gør ikke et land demokratisk ved at fjerne en diktator. Det er en proces, som kan tage mange årtier.

- Og hvem siger resten af verden absolut vil leve som i USA og Europa?

I øvrigt, så har en supermagt som USA kun forsøgt, at ubrede demokrati med uset militær magt i egen interesse. Ikke for at gøre noget godt for landets befolkning. Og hver gang USA er gået i krig for frihedens skyld som det hedder, har det altid været mod mindre velbeslåede lande med et svagt og delvis forsvarsløst militært.

Jeg tog det sidste afsnit med fordi det er så morsomt når folk ikke ved, hvad de selv skriver. Hvilke lande kunne USA gå i krig med, der ikke var dem økonomisk og militært underlegne? Espen Bøghs logik bliver også svigtet af hans indgroede fjendebilleder i denne Mabuselignende rablen

Diktatorer sidder oftest kun så længe de lever, og kommer der en ny diktator, - “der om man så må sige samler landet igen”.

Saddam Husseins søn/sønner kunne selvfølgelig efterfølge ham, men sjældent går det godt ret længe, da kun få accepterer dette i inderkredsen eller udefra.

Nordkorea er nærmet undtagelsen der bekræfter reglen, men lykkeligt er det næppe, selvom der hersker nærmest gude- eller kultstatus omkring lederen, - som reelt selv er fange af fortiden u nutiden.

Så efter en diktator kommer blot en ny diktator, hvilket Amerika burde have lært fra Iran, hvor de for øvrigt engang tidligere valgte at fjerne en demokratisk valgt præsident, og indsætte Shahen af Persien, Mohammed Reza Palevi, som var amerikansk marionet, der med sit tyranniske hemmelige politi, SAVAK, knægtede enhver form for demokratisk tale eller det der blot lignede.

Den demokratisk valgte præsident, havde nok været bedre i demokratisk henseende end for Irak, men den historie fik vi aldrig grundet Amerikansk undergravende indblanding dengang.

Med Shahen ude af billedet, kom ayatollah Khomeini tilbage fra Frankrig, som have lagt hus til denne religiøse fanatiker, hvilket adskillige vestlige lande som regel plejer at gøre.

Anders Fogh Rasmussens udtalelser er på randen af vanvid, og demonstrerer helt klart, at manden ikke selv mener eller tror han kan tage fejl, og derfor gemmer sig bagved, at give skylden for det kaos der nu er til Irakerne selv, ved at frikende den Amerikanske indsats.

Imidlertid er der kaos i Irak skabt netop af den Amerikanske intervention, og den måde Amerikanerne har håndteret situationen på igennem hele perioden, og samtidig brugt uanede summer af dollars på falsk loyalitet til de forkerte.

Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadaffi og deres lige var ikke engle på jorden, og skal ikke forsvares i den anledning eller på nogen måde, men tilstanden var dog stabil, og vist var det hemmelige politi og dets metoder ækle, men det blev jo ikke nævneværdigt bedre med al Maliki og hans slæng.

I dag er der så kaos i Irak, Libyen, Afghanistan m.m. som vesten har ansvaret for efter deres afprøvning af de seneste og mest moderne våben, så vesten kunne demonstrere sin overlegne våbenmagt og strategier for krigsførelse, - og Ih hvor er vi dog imponeret af os selv her bagefter, men vi er også samtidig uskyldige, for vi ville jo det gode!

Også Kurt Loftkjær lufter sin uerkendte indsigt når han postulerer at…

….demokrati ikke indføres med indsatstyrker og anden tvang. Det kræver hårdt arbejde og velvilje.

Det er meget optimistisk at tro, at Vesten kan rykke ind i Mellemøsten med de grænser, som opstod på baggrund af europæiske koloniherres opdeling af området for egen vindings skyld og uden hensyn til områdets stammefolk og religioner. Et område som kun få fra den vestlige kultur forstår eller har forsøgt at forstå.

Jeg hørte efter 1. Golfkrig en irakisk kvinde udtrykke betænkelighed over tanken om at fjerne Saddam Hussein. Efter hendes opfattelse havde han på flere områder sikret kvinder et bedre liv, end de ville kunne opnå i andre dele af Mellemøsten.

Igen; Velvilje har de lokale ikke; anklagen mod grænser der ikke tager hensyn til folkeslag og religioner er en anklage mod det multietniske/kulturelle/religiøse og resultet er at kun vold ved Saddam kunne sikre kvinderne en tålelig tilværelse. Det samme når Bob Jensen frem til før sin kulturelt selvhadende tirade

sadam hussein gav kvinder lige rettigheder med mænd, lavede et fremragende undervisnings - og sundhedssystem. han byggese et sekulært samfund i stedet for et bygget på religiøs fundamentalisme. selv om han heller ikke forbød religion. Han var en brutal diktator, fordi han vidste, at kun eh hård hånd kunne holde de modstridende religøse faktioner i ave, som landet havde med at gøre som resultat af de europæiske stormagters ignorante opdeling af mellemøsten omkring første verdenskrig.
Det er helt bestemt aldrig godt med en diktator. men det er såmænd heller ikke så skidegodt med en neoliberal regering, som skider hul i den brede befolknings behov og ønsker…

Og der stopper vi så før idiosynkrasierne løber løbsk. Saddam stod i modsætning til den folkelige kultur, i modsætning til multikulturen og islam (selvfølgelig kaldet religiøs fundamentalisme) og dette kunne kun holdes i ave ved vold. Så Espersen indrømmer en fejl, men den fejl har har revet afsløret venstrefløjens illusoriske verdensbillede og efterladt den forpint af sine kognitive dissonanser.

Muslimsk klangbund

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Irak, Jihad, Kalifatet, Kristenforfølgelse, Muslimer, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 26, 2014 at 3:03 pm

Daniel Greenfield skriver så rigtigt at det der er galt med ISIS er det der er galt med islam.

Wahhabi armies have been attacking Iraq in order to wipe out Shiites for over two hundred years. One of the more notably brutal attacks took place during the administration of President Thomas Jefferson.

That same year the Marine Corps saw action against the Barbary Pirates and West Point opened, but even Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn chiming via Ouija board would have trouble blaming the Wahhabi assault on the Iraqi city of Kerbala in 1802 on the United States or an oil pipeline.

(…)

The media finds it convenient to depict the rise of newly extremist groups being radicalized by American foreign policy, Israeli blockades or Danish cartoons. A closer look however shows us that these groups did not become radicalized, rather they increased their capabilities.

ISIS understood from the very beginning that targeting Shiites and later Kurds would give it more appeal to Sunni Arabs inside Iraq and around the Persian Gulf. Bin Laden tried to rally Muslims by attacking America. ISIS has rallied Muslims by killing Shiites, Kurds, Christians and anyone else it can find.

Every news report insists that ISIS is an extreme outlier, but if that were really true then it would not have been able to conquer sizable chunks of Iraq and Syria. ISIS became huge and powerful because its ideology drew the most fighters and the most financial support. ISIS is powerful because it’s popular.ISIS has become more popular and more powerful than Al Qaeda because Muslims hate other Muslims even more than they hate America. Media reports treat ISIS as an outside force that inexplicably rolls across Iraq and terrorizes everyone in its path. In reality, it’s the public face of a Sunni coalition. When ISIS massacres Yazidis, it’s not just following an ideology; it’s giving Sunni Arabs what they want.Jamal Jamir, a surviving Yazidi, told CNN that his Arab neighbors had joined in the killing.

I stedet for at citere Jamal Jamir i CNN, så er her en tilsvarende historie fra Sabah Hajji Hassan på Yahoo News om at islam er, hvor der er muslimer

Yazidis fleeing a jihadist onslaught in northern Iraq say neighbours took up arms alongside their attackers, informing on members of the religious minority and helping the militants take over.

“The (non-Iraqi) jihadists were Afghans, Bosnians, Arabs and even Americans and British fighters,” said Sabah Hajji Hassan, a 68-year-old Yazidi who managed to flee the bloody offensive by the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group.

“But the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbours.”

“The Metwet, Khawata and Kejala tribes — they were all our neighbours. But they joined the IS, took heavy weapons from them, and informed on who was Yazidi and who was not. Our neighbours made the IS takeover possible,” the distraught white-bearded Hassan said.

Og de kristnes erfaringer er de samme

Dokumentar - Meeting ISIL

Press TV er en iransk TV station, så man skal se ‘dokumentaren’ med øje for propaganda interesser. Dog er det alligevel et kig bag facaden

To learn who these people are, what they are fighting for, and who funds them, PRESS TV goes deep into their camps and brings you face to face interviews and exclusive footage. Many of those who were initially infatuated by the group’s promise of justice seem to be horrified and utterly disillusioned today.

Everyone who is not us is the enemy and should be branded as infidel. This seems to be the prevailing ideology of the extreme Takfiri terrorists known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Their aim is said to be the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Shias, Christians, Sunnis, Yazidies, and whomsoever who dares to question them or raise his voice of dissent are persecuted under their highly distorted version of Islamic Sharia. Gruesome be-headings, crucifixions and mass executions are openly carried out under their iconic black flag which is more like a modern day equivalent of a Jolly Roger. At times, it seems like their victims are whoever who is unlucky enough to be in their path during their killing sprees. And yet they know how to manipulate social media and have succeeded in brainwashing some to join them in their “fight for justice”.

Venstrefløjen kan ikke genkende en bankerot ideologi

ISIS islamisk sanktionerede slagtning af den amerikanske journalist rummer et opkog af de seneste årtiers møde med islam. Islaem er som islam er, du må tage hele pakken. Men vi i vesten, eller det vil sige de pludrende klasser, bedrager sig selv og en farlig stor del af befolkningen ved at betragte islam som en eksotisk projektion af egen ønsketænkning. Først er der den stakkels journalist, som bedrog sig selv da han drog afsted for at formidle en større forståelse for islam og ISIS bevæggrunde. Frontpage Magazine afstod fra at tale pænt om de døde og gennemgik Foleys tweets

Foley came to Syria to support the Sunni Islamist rebels against the Syrian government. He was a vehement advocate and while he didn’t necessarily side with any single group, he echoed the one sided narrative rather than telling the truth about the Islamists. His Twitter feed was full of urgings to arm the Jihadists.

Meanwhile he sneered at America’s War on Terror.

He cheered on the Sunni Muslim terrorists fighting to ethnically cleanse the Christians of Aleppo. In the conflict between Israel and Hamas, his tweets and retweets were chock full of pro-Sunni Syrian terrorist propaganda.

When Newsweek’s Muslim Rage cover story came out, Foley mocked it too. Raging Muslims. How silly and Islamophobic.

Som om det ikke var nok, så viser det sig (måske) at Foley blev taget til fange af de mennesker vores kære ledere havde knyttet håb og penge til, skriver International Business Times

According to Syrian sources who have worked previously to locate and rescue kidnapped journalists in Syria, American journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by Islamic State in a video the militant group made public on Tuesday, was most likely used by another guerrilla group as a token of allegiance to ISIS.

According to those sources, Foley was in the hands of the Dawood Bridgade, a group that was originally aligned with relatively moderate opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army, but recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

The International Business Times reported last month that activists on the ground near Al Bab, Syria, said that the Dawood Brigade, which now consists of about 1,000 people, defected from the Free Syrian Army and moved on to Raqqa to join ISIS. The group arrived in Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold, in a convoy of more than 100 vehicles.

USAs præsident Barak Hussein Obama kunne have sagt noget fornuftigt da han slog fat at “ISIL has no ideology of any value for human beings. Their ideology is bankrupt”, men havde allerede undergravet fornuften med den absurde omend sædvanlige apologi

ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim. And no faith teaches massacres on innocents. No just god will stand for, what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.

Muslimer og kun muslimer over hele verden strømmer til ISIS med de samme korancitater med tilskyndende råb fra ummaen - men skam få den der kunne tænke at det havde noget med islam at gøre. David Trads gjorde på sin Facebook profil i vanlig perfid stil Fathi El-Abeds vanvid rangen stridig ved at give Hamas åndsfæller ISIS syndsforladelse og pege på

Billedet til venstre er fra Islamisk Stats henrettelse af en amerikansk journalist. Billedet til højre er fra USAs ydmygelser af muslimske fanger i Abu Ghraib. Begge fotos illustrerer grove krænkelser af individer.

Modbydelig opførsel avler endnu flere modbydeligheder - og vi burde tænke over, om vores stiltiende accept af Vestens krigsovergreb mod muslimer i de forløbne mange år står i vejen for for en løsning på vanviddet.

Vi burde i hvert fald ikke bringe os i en situation, hvor vi selv står langt fra de værdier, som vi - med rette - blir forargede over, at andre bryder. Lad os sikre, at vi altid står for det gode eksempel. Aldrig det forkastelige.

Den eneste tvivl, der findes i islam er graden af grusomhed, der er en ret der skal nydes, som en canadisk imam ifølge Tarek Fatah forklarede sine spirituelle tilhørere.

Bulldozing the Border Between Iraq and Syria: The Islamic State (Part 5)

5. og sidste del af Vice News serie om kalifatet

On August 8, nearly three years after the United States pulled out of Iraq, President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes to commence on Islamic State positions in northern Iraq, as the group’s fighters advanced towards the Kurdish capital of Erbil. For six weeks prior to the strikes the Islamic State made stunning gains within Iraq, effectively dismantling the border with Syria and defeating the Iraqi army with little in the way to stop them.

In the final installment of VICE News’ unprecedented look inside the Islamic State, reporter Medyan Dairieh journeys 200 miles from the the group’s power base in the Syrian city of Raqqa to the border with Iraq. There, after defeating the Iraqi army manning the checkpoint, Islamic State fighters work further to bulldoze the border.

As they clear apart a barrier that divided Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters declare an end of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a nearly 100-year-old pact between France and Britain that divided up the Middle East. For now, that area between Iraq and Syria is part of a new territory: the Islamic State.

Click here to watch all 5 Parts of The Islamic State: bit.ly/1sDag1c

Og her er filmen så i fuld længde

Christians in the Caliphate: The Islamic State

Fjerde del af Vice News serie om kalifatet

The lightning advances of the Islamic State across Syria and Iraq in June shocked the world. But it’s not just the group’s military victories that have garnered attention — it’s also the pace with which its members have begun to carve out a viable state.

As the soldiers of the Islamic State continue in their effort to build up institutions in the north central Syrian city of Raqqa, the Hisbah, or religious police, are tasked with enforcing a particularly harsh form of Sharia law.

In part 4 of The Islamic State, VICE News visits the Sharia courts where those accused of infractions are sentenced to harsh penalties, including death by crucifixion. But the courts don’t just handle crime. Citizens can bring all manners of complaints, including family disputes, and see the Islamic State’s form of justice doled out.

With unprecedented access, VICE News reporter Medyan Dairieh also visits the section of the court specifically set up for Christians, where the Islamic State discusses its treatment of minorities, and sees a former Armenian Catholic Church that has been converted into an Islamic center.

Enforcing Sharia in Raqqa (The Islamic State Part 3)

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Forbrydelse og straf, Irak, Jihad, Kalifatet, Muslimer, Sharia, Syrien, islam — Drokles on August 12, 2014 at 5:19 am

3. del af Vice News serie om ISIS

The Islamic State now governs its caliphate from the north central Syrian city of Raqqa, which was once a relatively westernized agricultural hub. As the State’s power base, Raqqa is where it imposes its version of Sharia law throughout large swaths of Iraq and Syria.

The “Hisbah” are the new Sharia police. In the latest episode of The Islamic State, VICE News joins them on their daily patrols during Ramadan, and witnesses how they check on shops and scrutinize produce, while at the same time ensuring their strict rules on women’s appearances are adhered to.

We are also taken to an Islamic State prison and speak with inmates accused of abusing drugs and selling alcohol. There we learn firsthand of the prisoners’ punishments, and how they have since “rediscovered” their devotion to the Islamic faith since their incarceration — but are yet to be granted permission to declare their allegiance to the caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Kalifatet er etableret!

Dokumentar om det nyligt oprettede kalifat. Deres fremgang er ikke så overraskende. Kalifatets øverste, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, vinder lokale tilhængere med bloddryppende islamiske citater “a message that clearly resonated among the crowd”.

Fra Washington Post

It’s “worse than al-Qaeda,” Brett McGurk, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary for Iraq and Iran, told lawmakers last month. It “is no longer simply a terrorist organization. It is now a full-blown army seeking to establish a self-governing state through the Tigris and Euphrates valley in what is now Syria and Iraq.”

Some accounts say it’s no longer seeking to do this — but has already done it.

In the Syrian town of Raqqah, called the Islamic State’s capital, the movement governs with an austere, barbaric but orderly hand. According to this telling New York Times piece, for which a reporter spent six days interviewing residents, crime is rare, traffic cops keep the streets moving and tax collectors are organized. Those accused of theft have also lost hands. It’s a glimpse of what may be coming to the rest of the captured territory, a nation-sized swath of terrain spilling across borders.

But it’s not just the land itself. It’s what the land holds that suggests the true extent of the Islamic State’s power. It “now controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations,” wrote defense expert Janine Davidson of the Council of Foreign Relations. She added: “Should [the Islamic State] continue this pattern of consolidation and expansion, this terrorist ‘army’ will eventually be able to exert a destabilizing influence far beyond the immediate area.”

The group has a keen eye for resources and cash, which some suspect is the the fulcrum of its continued growth. In addition to stealing and selling ancient relics worth tens of millions and looting hundreds of millions from banks, it has also recently captured a Syrian gas field east of Homs along with other oilfields, killing 23, Reuters reported.

Experts estimate the group is pocketing as much as $3 million per day in oil revenue by selling off resources on black markets in the greater Levant.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress