Gentagelse og fald

Mikael Jalving havde ikke mere at sige, om endnu et terrorangreb, det vi så i Paris, fortalte han sine læsere. Eller i hvert fald kunne han ikke sige, hvad han allerede har sagt bedre end han gjorde senest, da Charlie Hebdo og et jødisk supermarked var genstand for muslimernes vrede. Men Jalving er værd at genlæse og ellers kan man glæde sig over Snaphanens Steens fremragende skriv, med masser af links til andre gode skrifter.

For det er er svært at sige noget nyt om en verden der ser ud til at gentage sig selv når politikere, journalister og eksperter ikke tager ved lære. I Berlingske Tidende kunne man i kortform læse eksperterne demonstrere næsten hele paletten. 6-7 gengangerpunkter blev nævnt og kun et eneste var relevant for forståelsen af den terror der rammer os, for den flygtninge og migrationsstrøm på vej og årsagerne bagved. Da jeg aldrig har skrevet så godt som Jalving kan jeg godt tåle at gentage mig selv uden at risikere en antiklimaks. De radikaliserede islamisters bevæggrunde er som følger

»Der er en række spændinger mellem franskmændene og den muslimske befolkning, der føler, de bliver undertrykt. Det ser vi blandt andet i forhold til, at man har indført forbud mod at bære tørklæde i skoler, ligesom muslimerne ikke føler sig imødekommet i forhold til mulighederne for at undgå svinekød i offentlige køkkener og udøve deres religion på offentlige steder,« siger Henrik Prebensen.

1a) Tørklædeforbud. Det er egentligt et forbud mod religiøs beklædning og rammer alle religioner der hænger deres hat på tøjet.

1b) Mangel på svinekødsforbud. Denne anke mod øvrigheden hænger sammen med den første, da det er krav om islamisk levevis. Men her er det ikke som passiv muslim, men som den offentsive der har retten til at diktere vilkårene for kuffar. Muslimerne nægtes deres overhøjhed.

Parret med en generel skepsis blandt franskmændene over for den muslimske befolkning…

2) Franskmændene er dårlige, hvis ikke xenofobiske, værter.

…betyder det ifølge Henrik Prebensen, at en stor del af Frankrigs muslimske befolkning føler sig tilsidesat og forfulgt.

3) Generel tilstand af udenforskab.

Tidligere PET-chef Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen er enig i, at det ikke er tilfældigt, at radikaliserede islamister angriber Frankrig igen. Han peger på Frankrigs rolle i den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat i Syrien og Irak. Desuden kæmper Frankrig mod islamistiske oprørere i det afrikanske land Mali.

4) Frankrigs rolle mod ISIS og at de forhindrede folkemord i Mali.

Ifølge Bonnichsen kan timingen af terrorangrebene i Paris hænge sammen med, at Islamisk Stat oplever modgang på slagmarken

5) Islamisk stat er trængte. Hvis de havde fremgang ville det være en anden sag må vi forstå.

Og så har man også nogle voldsomme sociale spændinger…

6) Ikke nok bistandshjælp.

…der kan understøtte det had, som eksisterer i forvejen, når vi taler om islam og den vestlige verden,« siger Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen.

7) Hovedet på sømmet! Og det går vi så ikke mere ind i, for det indebærer den smertelige erkendelse at ingen fred er mulig og at så længe man anerkender muslimernes ret til være en del af Frankrig, som af noget vestligt land, så længe vil man befinde sig i en tilstand af krig. Ja, man kunne udtrykke det som at bo i krigens hus.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-11-19-kl-072249

Ovenfor lover X-Files artikel i Jyllandsposten klassikerne i endnu et mysterium for medier, politikere og eksperter. Hvorfor sprængte en muslim sig selv og en masse kuffar i luften? Og så en fredag aften? Og så var også han, som alle de andre en god og rolig fyr.

Obama og Kerrys svar er ord. That’s all thay have, words. De insisterer på at kalde ISIS for Daesh, fordi navnet er blevet forbudt i Islamisk Stat: “Part of the reason is because in Arabic the word “Daesh” can be taken as a play on words to mean something along the lines of “a bigot who imposes his view on others” or “to trample down and crush,” og ved at insistere på at minde terrorister fra Islamisk Stat om at de rent faktisk undertrykker andres tanker, så generer man dem måske på et personligt plan. Det har ikke den samme effekt som Assads tøndebomber, men det skulle til gengæld ikke gå ud over civile. Meeen formålet er nok snarere at forhindre at islam kommer sprogligt i forbindelse med islamisk aktivitet, en renvaskning er problemets stilling. Hmm, det kunne være man skulle kalde dem det, Islamisk Aktivitet? Det ville sikkert pisse en venstrefløjser af i ens omgangskreds.

NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, ja det er vel ækvivalensen til at Saudierne blev formænd for FNs råd for menneskerettigheder, mener det er på sin plads at nævne islam, selv om islam ikke har noget med noget at gøre, skriver Danmarks Radio

- Dette er ikke en kamp mellem den muslimske verden og den vestlige verden. Det er en kamp mellem ekstremister, kriminelle og mennesker, der tror på fundamentale værdier som frihed og respekt for menneskerettigheder, siger han ifølge nyhedsbureauet AFP.

“It was instructive that the moment President Hollande grasped the awful reality his first instinct was to close France’s borders.” skriver Simon Heffer i Telegraph. Det er sigende at Hollande, trods en overordnet politik om åbne grænser og næsten stålsat vilje mod at ville indrømme krigens realiteter - indtil nu? - alligevel afslører en erkendelse af problemets rod; muslimer der vælter over grænserne.

Hvad fortæller det om Danmarks politiske elite når alternativet til Løkke var Christian Jensen, der straks han hørte om de muslimske myrderier, tweetede en appel til danskerne om at stemme ja til EU? Ja, hvad fortæller det om intelligentsiaen i Venstre når Justitsminister Søren Pind mener at manglende grænsekontrol og konventioner ikke havde noget at spille med terrortruslen. “Vi betaler nu en høj pris for den passivitet, som Vesten har udøvet i Syrien.” siger han og mener alligevel at vi skulle have entreret Søvndals syriske jungle. For erfaringerne fra de irakiske og libyske regnskove demonstrerer virkeligt at vores ageren er problemets rod. Inger Støjberg fortsætte sin hard-liner løgn ved at lange verbalt ud efter studiegruppen og islamoplyserne Hizb ut-Tahrir. En “syg organisation som ikke hører til her”, kaldte hun dem og som en anden Villy Søvndal “forstår egentlig ikke, hvad det er, der afholder dem fra at flytte”. Men hvis hun lyttede efter, så handler det ikke om at der er noget der afholder dem fra noget, sådan er det jo med frihed. Der er derimod noget de,, som så mange andre tilvandrende muslimer vil, nemlig lave Danmark om til et kalifat. De er her på en mission, som det politiske Danmark afholder sig fra at forhindre. I stedet diskes der op med ord, ord, ord.

Denne regering, den værste regering nogensinde i dansk historie, har ophøjet politisk impotens til et kategorisk imperativ, som folket blot er i vejen for. Og Dansk Folkeparti ser ud til at have købt Løkkes rope-a-dope taktik og betalt med deres identitet. Og det er vel en forandring.

En kedelig forandring var iøvrigt også Søren Espersen, der tilsyneladende tænkte, at hvis terroren i Paris kunne være udgangspunktet for en konstruktiv debat om islam, indvandring af muslimer og hævdelse af dansk overhøjhed på dansk jord, som venstrefløjen vanskeligt kunne undslå sig, så ville det være bedre med en debat for og imod Søren Espersen selv. Vel vidende at når man indleder en argumentation om at gå hårdere til Islamisk Stat med “…vi er så gentlemen-agtige, at vi aldrig bomber, der hvor der er civile - også kvinder og børn.” så er der ingen der læser resten og Espersen spildte sine støtters tid og ressourcer på “Det Søren siger og mener er…” mens venstrefløjen og medierne fik sig lidt luft med historien om den moralske ækvivalens mellem islam og dens kritikere.

Peter Robinson taler med Charles Hill og General James Mattis om Iran-aftalen, demokrati og frihed

Hvis Obamas atom-aftale viser sig at være en Chamberlain 1938 så kan jeg nok tilgives for at hænge mig lidt i den

Recorded on July 16, 2015 - Hoover fellows Charles Hill and James Mattis discuss the Iran deal and the state of the world on Uncommon Knowledge with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson. In their view the United States has handed over its leading role to Iran and provided a dowry along with it. Iran will become the leading power in the region as the United States pulls back; as the sanctions are lifted Iran will start making a lot of money. No matter what Congress does at this point, the sanctions are gone. Furthermore, the president will veto anything Congress comes up with to move the deal forward. This de facto treaty circumvents the Constitution.
If we want better deals and a stronger presence in the international community, then the United States needs to compromise, and listen to one another other, and encourage other points of view, especially from the three branches of government. If the United States pulls back from the international community, we will need to relearn the lessons we learned after World War I. But if we engage more with the world and use solid strategies to protect and encourage democracy and freedom at home and abroad, then our military interventions will be fewer. The United States and the world will be in a better position to handle problems such as ISIS.

Iran-aftale

We’ll remember you’ve said that!“ Dennis Praeger skriver at ondskab ikke er mørk, men derimod så “painfully bright that people look away from it”

The Nazi regime’s great hatred was Jews. Iran’s great hatred is the Jewish state. The Nazis’ greatest aim was to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Iran’s greatest aim is to exterminate the Jewish state. Nazi Germany hated the West and its freedoms. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the West and its freedoms. Germany sought to dominate Europe. Iran seeks to dominate the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And exactly as Britain and France appeased Nazi Germany, the same two countries along with the United States have chosen to appease Iran.

(…)

Iran is responsible for more American deaths in the last quarter century than any other group or country. Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, and Major Chris Driver-Williams of British special forces, summarized it this way: “Iranian military action, often working through proxies using terrorist tactics, has led to the deaths of well over a thousand American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade and a half.”

The Neville Chamberlains of 2015 defend the agreement with Iran on two grounds — that the only alternative is war and that this agreement has the capacity to bring Iran into “the community of nations.”

The first is a falsehood. For three reasons.

First, the alternative to this agreement was continuing and tightening the sanctions that were weakening the Iranian regime and greatly diminishing its ability to fund terror groups around the world. Second, because the agreement so strengthens Iran, it makes war far more likely. When evil, expansionist regimes get richer, they don’t spend their wealth on building new hospitals. Third, because we have been at war with Iran for decades. But only one side has been fighting.

Mark Steyn mener at Obamas aftale er værre end Chamberlains (via Snaphanen)

Thomas Sowell endnu videre og sammenligner Iran aftalen med ‘den største historiske fejltagelse’, Yongle dynastiets opløsning af Zheng Hes ekspeditioner i 1433. Obama derimod sammenligner aftalen med Iran med atomaftalerne med Sovietunionen.

Hvad er det helt præcist, at Obama-regeringen tror har ændret sig vedrørende Irans ledelse?” spørger Douglas Murray på Gatestone Institute

Der må trods alt være noget, som en vestlig leder ser, når der gøres forsøg på at “normalisere” forholdet til et slyngelregime — noget Richard Nixon så i det kinesiske kommunistparti, som overbeviste ham om, at en optøning af forholdet var mulig, eller noget Margaret Thatcher så i Mikhail Gorbachevs øjne, som overbeviste hende om, at her var omsider en modpart, man kunne stole på.

De ydre tegn i forbindelse med Iran ser trods alt lidet lovende ud. Forleden fredag i Teheran, netop som P5+1 færdiggjorde deres aftale med iranerne, var Irans gader vært for “Al-Quds dag.” I den iranske kalender er dette dagen, indført af afdøde ayatollah Khomeini, hvor den anti-israelske og anti-amerikanske aktivitet træder i forgrunden i endnu højere grad end normalt. Opmuntrede af regimet, marcherede ti tusindvis af iranere i gaderne og råbte på udslettelse af Israel og “død over Amerika”. Der blev ikke blot afbrændt israelske og amerikanske flag – der blev også sat ild til britiske flag i en rørende påmindelse om, at Iran er det eneste land som stadig tror, at Storbritannien styrer verden.

Den seneste af en lang række af “moderate” iranske ledere, præsident Hassan Rouhani, dukkede selv op ved en af disse parader for at se de israelske og amerikanske flag blive brændt af. Greb han ind? Forklarede han folkemængden, at de havde fået fat i det forkerte notat – at Amerika nu er deres ven, og at de i det mindste burde koncentrere deres energi om masseafbrænding af davidsstjernerne? Nej, han deltog som han plejer, og mængden reagerede som den plejer.

Det var det samme for blot få uger siden, da det iranske parlament samledes for at drøfte Wienaftalen. Ved den lejlighed forlod det iranske parlament mødet, efter nogen bemyndiget debat, mens repræsentanterne råbte “død over Amerika.”

Et generøst menneske ville måske sige, at det ikke betyder noget – når man i Iran råber “død over Amerika,” svarer det til, at man klarer halsen. Det er netop, hvad vi får at vide – at disse budskaber “kun er til hjemligt brug” og ikke betyder noget.

(…)

Set udefra kan det virke, som om kun meget lidt har ændret sig i Irans retorik og at meget lidt har ændret sig i regimets adfærd. Det er grunden til, at mysteriet om, hvad det er for en forandring den amerikanske regering og dens partnere ser i ayatollahernes øjne, er ekstra gådefuldt.

Fordi aftalens karakter gør det ekstremt vigtigt, at der er en eller anden forandring. Inden for de næste ti år vil ayatollaherne, til gengæld for de formodet “gennemførte inspektioner” af et begrænset antal iranske kernekraftsteder, nyde godt af en handelseksplosion med en kontant guldgrube i størrelsesordenen 140 milliarder dollar i form af frigivne aktiver, blot for at sætte dem igang. I de samme ti år vil der ske en lempelse af restriktionerne på – blandt andet – iransk salg og køb af konventionelle våben og ammunition. Endelig vil Iran blive i stand til at købe det længe ventede anti-luftværnssystem, som russerne (der selvfølgelig også var til stede ved forhandlingsbordet i Wien) ønsker at sælge til dem. Dette system – som er blandt de mest avancerede jord-til-luft missilsystemer — vil være i stand til at skyde et hvilket som helst amerikansk, israelsk eller andet fly ned, skulle et sådant nogensinde dukke op for at ødelægge Irans atomprojekt.

Apropos det iranske regimes nye 100-150 mia dollars Ryan Mauro har på The Clarion Project samlet en liste over nuværende udgifter, her i uddrag, som kan komme Irans naboer til glæde og gavn

$6.5 Billion: Budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the elite security force that keeps the Iranian regime in power by oppressing the population and sponsors terrorism around the world. It is responsible for providing advanced IEDs that killed at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Moderate” President Rouhani increased the IRGC’s budget by almost half in 2015 at a time when Iran is strapped for money.

$6 Billion: Iran’s Yearly Donation to Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad

This figure was stated by the U.N.’s envoy to Syria. Other experts put it as high as $15 billion. Assad is a state sponsor of terrorism whose rule helps fuel Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. His determination to cling onto power has resulted in 320,000 dead and over 4 million refugees in a population of only 23 million since 2011.

$4-5 Billion: Estimated Spending By Iran on Terrorist Proxies

This figure was calculated by the Israeli Defense Forces’ Chief of Staff, who emphasized that this support is limited only by the current “economic limitations” of Iran, which will be expanded under the deal.

$2 Billion: Iran’s Annual Assistance to Extremist Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria

These militias have killed U.S. servicemen in the past and may target the 3,500 troops in Iraq now. The 140,000 members get $300 per month salary and $900 per month for arms and accommodations. The militias are brutal towards innocent Sunnis, indirectly assisting the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

Obama har sagt at han ville være en god præsident, hvis han fik en tredie periode. Han skal prise sig lykkelig for at det ikke kan lade sig gøre.

Stadig svært at erkende kristenforfølgelsen endsige dens ophav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racismens komplekse fortælling

Da en ung mand, Freddie Carlos Gray, mistede livet i Baltimore politis varetægt under besynderlige omstændigheder udbrød der uroligheder. Den unge mand var sort, vanekriminel ganske vist, men sort, eller i hvert fald mørk nok til at tælle med til de afroamerikanske, og mistanken om endnu en racistisk drab var derfor nok til en konklusion. Baltimore er styret af Demokraterne og har været det længe og har en sort borgmester. Politiet er 60% sort. Men da Trayvon Martin for et par år siden også blev dræbt af en hvid, eller snarere en latino og i selvforsvar, så var der et mønster.

Og dette mønster blev kun forstærket da den hvide betjent Darren Wilson dræbte den 130 kg lette teenager Michael Brown, der blidt havde skubbet den lokale asiatiske købmand omkuld og røvet en kasse cigarer. Ganske vist prøve Brown at overmande Wilson mens han truede med at slå ham ihjel, men da utroværdige vidner løj om at han havde hænderne oppe, afmægtigt appellerende “Hands up, don’t shoot!” så var det bedre en bevisets stilling. Alle løgne beviser den samme fortælling, at sorte ulykke intet har med deres adfærd at gøre, men er resultatet af et racistisk jerngreb som selv ikke Obama har kunnet hele.

“What’s weird is that it never happens to white kids” mente komikeren Chris Rock, skønt en hvid teenager var blevet skudt og dræbt at to sorte betjente nogenlunde samtidig med Freddie Gray. Michael Moore krævede på Twitter at “every African-American currently incarcerated for drug ‘crimes’ or nonviolent offenses released from prison today” og “Disarm the police. We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We’ll survive til the right cops r hired”. Højrefløjen bliver aldrig træt af at minde om, at en af Moores mange livvagter er blevet anholdt for ulovlig besiddelse af et skydevåben. Identiteten med at være undertrykt neger spredte sig til forskellige byer i USA og endda helt til Israel, hvor der opstod uroligheder i den venstredrejede(!) højborg Tel Aviv. Diversitet fører grundlæggende blot til øget segregering og mistro til naboer, samfund og myndigheder.

Thomas Sowell skriver i National Review

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less. You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.

Som ingen fakta tilsyneladende rokker ved følelsen af identitet, rokker ingen identitet ved fakta. Anklagemyndigheden endte med at rejse tiltale mod Den mordsigtede betjent er sort, som to af de tre sigtet for manddrab, som man kan læse på Daily Mail.

a-complex-tale-of-white-supremacy

Ja, det giver unægteligt racismefortælling et lag af kompleksitet

Negerderoute II

Den sorte familie i USA er gået i opløsning i takt med først stigende civile rettigheder og siden dyrkelsen af berettigelse skrev jeg tidligere. To sørgelige videoer til illustration. Først en teenager, der grinende tager selfies mens hans egen mor og kæreste slås

Dyrkelsen af berettigelse: Obama sendte en sørgedelegation til den kriminelle Freddie Greys begravelse, men ikke til krigshelten Kris Kyles. En kvinde mener ikke hun skal betale for en flaske vand fordi hendes slægtninge engang var slaver

Obamas har ikke helet USA

Der var høje forventninger til Barak hussein Obama, da han blev valgt til USAs præsident. Kansas City Stars Mary Sanchez formulerede forhåbningerne således i 2008

On race, however, Obama only has to show up. That’s how it works to be the first minority to achieve any high-profile role. It is a strange phenomenon. Simply by standing in a space long held by the same sorts of people - namely, white men - something shifts in the cosmos. Years ago, when Kansas City, Mo., elected its first black mayor, Emanuel Cleaver (now a member of Congress), some compared his impact on city race relations to the effect a teacher has by standing on the playground at recess. The kids play differently - more nicely. Point being that simply being in the room takes things up a notch.

Nu har han så været her en del år og spændingerne er siden kun steget. Der har været flere prominente sager, hvor ‘race-baiters’ har opviglet sorte masser og venstrefløjen i deciderede racekampe. Overraskende har man taget udgangspunkt i enddog meget dårlige sager, hvis man ville demonstrere et racistisk hvidt USA, der undertrykker den sorte befolkning. Først i rækken var sagen om den jødisk-mexikanske George Zimmerman, der en sen aften i selvforsvar dræbte den sorte Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin dyrkede et afsindigt had til hvide, drak sig høj på Watermelon Lean og var blevet bortvist flere gange fra sin skole på grund af tyveri og konflikter. Den skæbnesvangre aften havde Zimmerman, der var med i et frivilligt lokalt vagtværn, set Trayvon Martin opføre sig mistænkeligt.

Obama undlod blot at være til stede med sin fredsskabende sorthed og pustede istedet til fortællingen om et racistisk mord ved at påstå at det kunne være hans egen søn, der blev skudt. Og derefter blev der imod politiets og den lokale statsanklagers vilje, rejst en sag mod Zimmerman. Zimmerman, der op til retsagen tog 30 kg på, blev renset for alle anklager, men ikke for mistanken. Hans liv siden har været præget af angst og paranoia og han har haft flere voldelige sammenstød med både familie og politiet.

Det samme mønster gentog sig i byen Ferguson, da en hvid betjent, Darren Wilson, skød og dræbte den sorte Michael Brown på åben gade. Brown blev i medierne kaldt the gentle giant og der opstod hurtigt et hysterisk pres for at få Wilson anklaget og dømt for mord. Den lokale anklager valgte stik imod bevisernes substans at give efter for presset ved at holde en udvidet høring, så offentligheden kunne for syn for sagn. Wilson blev pure frifundet. The Gentle Gian havde angrebet Wilson og truet med at slå ham ihjel. Inden da havde han røvet en kasse cigarer fra en lokal forretning - den blev senere brændt ned under pøblens rasende anklager om forrædderi. Sagens beviser kunne ikke ændre hverken mediernes eller pøblens fortælling. Og i marts i år blev to betjente skudt ned i Ferguson i et attentat - begge overlevede.

“I want to see a cop shoot a white unarmed teenager in the back” er Guardians Toni Morrison som svar på, hvornår racespændingerne forsvinder. Men ifølge Washington Times så er det krav allerede mere end indfriet

Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

Killed by Police lists every death, justified or not, including those in which the officer had been wounded or acted in self-defense.

“The data doesn’t indicate which shootings are justified (the vast majority) and which are cold-blooded murder (not many, but some). And maybe that would vary by race. I don’t know, but I doubt it,” Mr. Moskos said on his blog.

Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.

“If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks,” said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book “Cop in the Hood.”

“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.”

Mr. Moskos listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.”

The second is that police assigned to black communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force.

Figures on police shootings by race are thin on the ground, but Mr. Moskos’s results have some support: The investigative journalism website ProPublica came up with a similar percentage in an Oct. 10 article, reporting that 44 percent of all those killed by police were white, using FBI data from 1980 to 2012.

The fact-checking website PolitiFact concluded in August 2014 that police kill more whites than blacks after the claim was made by conservative commentator Michael Medved. PolitiFact cited data from the Centers for Disease Control on fatal injuries by “legal intervention” from 1999 to 2011.

“Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct,” said PolitiFact.

But PolitiFact gave his assertion a “half true” rating because whites make up 63 percent of the population, while blacks make up just 12 percent.

“Yes, more whites than blacks die as a result of an encounter with police, but whites also represent a much bigger chunk of the total population,” PolitiFact said in its Aug. 21 post.

But PolitiFact did not take into account the percentage of those by race involved in violent crime or shootings of police, as Mr. Moskos did.

Despite the recent flood of media coverage involving police shootings, Mr. Moskos advised his readers to “keep all this morbidity in perspective,” reminding them that very few people, white or black, will ever be shot or killed by police.

“The odds that any given black man will shoot and kill a police officer in any given year is slim to none, about one in a million. The odds for any given white man? One in four million,” he said. “The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”

I Baltimore forleden forfaldt en protestdemonstration over Freddie Grays, en sort amerikaner, utidige død i politiets varetægt, i kaos og plyndringer. Det er Obamas time for healing

Israel gav Bibi en chance - til

Arabere, Barak Hussein Obama, Diverse, Israel, Obama, Politik, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on March 18, 2015 at 5:04 pm

Netanyahus Likud vandt en glimrende sejr ved det israelske parlamentsvalg igår. Det vakte ellers opsigt da Netanyahu advarede mod for mange arabere ved stemmeurnerne og der skulle præciseres, skriver Arnold Ahlert for Frontpage Magazine

Netanyahu offered subsequent clarification of his remarks, insisting “what’s wrong is not that Arab citizens are voting, but that massive funds from abroad from left-wing NGOs and foreign governments is bringing them en masse to the polls in an organized way, thus twisting the true will of all Israeli citizens who are voting, for the good of the left,” he explained.

One of those NGOs was Victory 15, a subsidiary of Washington-based OneVoice, a non-profit currently being probed by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The bipartisan investigation is exploring possible ties to the Obama administration following the revelation that OneVoice received $350,000 in recent State Department grants. State Department officials insist that funding for OneVoice stopped a month prior to the announcement of the Israeli election. But OneVoice’s 2014 Annual Report stated that it would be “embarking on a groundbreaking campaign around the Israeli elections,” and that Victory 15 would be “promoting popular resistance, state-building and the Arab Peace Initiative, while advocating for an end to the conflict and a two-state solution along the 1967 borders.” More telling, Victory 15 is run by Jeremy Bird, who was Obama’s National Field Director during his successful presidential campaigns.

Herzog, who had emerged as Netanyau’s chief rival, made a statement following his vote that should sound very familiar to Americans. “Whoever wants to follow (Netanyahu’s) path of despair and disappointment will vote for him,” Herzog maintained. “But whoever wants change, hope, and really a better future for Israel, will vote the Zionist Union led by me.”

Netanyahu believed the leftist-inspired hope and change was a potentially fatal departure from reality for a country surrounded by enemies who yearn for its annihilation. His position is buttressed by an ever-strengthening ISIS, and Iranian aggression that most recently manifested itself with the addition of Yemen to its list of terrorist proxies that also include Syria and Hezbollah. “We have a different approach,” Netanyahu said. “They (the Zionist Union) want to withdraw. I don’t want to withdraw. If I put together the government, it will be a nationalist government.” Netanyahu has ruled out a coalition with Herzog and will seek to align himself with the Jewish Home party, a hard-line nationalist organization that also opposes Palestinian statehood—putting him squarely at odds with the Obama administration and other Western leaders who remain convinced, despite decades of ongoing failure, that the so-called two-state solution is the ultimate cure for Middle East violence.

Joel B Pollack skriver for Breitbart

Meanwhile, the mainstream media are at a loss for words. They had expected Netanyahu to lose, perhaps even by a wide enough margin to put Herzog in the pole position to form a new government. They had expected economic issues to trump security issues, which were Netanyahu’s focus. And they expected far stronger Arab turnout (as did Netanyahu).

Herzog did put up a good fight, and will have cemented his leadership role in the opposition while building an international profile. The real loser is President Barack Obama, who undoubtedly hoped for a poor showing by Netanyahu. And the even bigger loser is the Iranian regime, who will now face an emboldened Israeli leader who made the case for his re-election on the grounds of strong public opposition to the generous terms of the nuclear deal that Obama is negotiating with Iran.

The most important immediate consequence of the election is that Netanyahu’s defense minister, Moshe “Bogey” Ya’alon, is likely to retain his post. A thorn in the side of Secretary of State John Kerry, whom he called “messianic,” Ya’alon is one of the few military planners in the western world with a grasp on the strategic realities of the Middle East. He has been a counsel of patience for Netanyahu, advising him not to waste resources on Hamas while Iran still looms as the enemy.

New York Times har dog ikke tabt mælet, skriver Robert Spencer på Jihad Watch og henviser til Jodi Rudorens raseri.

netanyahu1

Venstrefløjen hader dem, der hader ondskab

Den amerikanske præsident Barak Hussein Obama bruger ofte udtrykket “en bankerot ideologi” om ISIS, Kalifatet i Irak og Levanten. Det er helt sikkert en ond ideologi og den hedder islam, men den er ikke bankerot. Den er sine steder, som hos ISIS ganske levende og dyrkes med stor nidkærhed og med et formål.

Hvad der derimod er bankerot ideologi er venstrefløjens dogmatiske kompleks af værdier. Så bankerot at Obama og mange andre med ham, end ikke kan sætte ord på det der skræmmer dem af frygt for at indrømme, deres eminente fejl og svigt. Dennis Prager diagnosticerer i Townhall venstrefløjens fortrængning af ondskabens realitet med udgangspunkt i netop Obama

There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But there is another question: Why?

And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:

Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.

Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations that pose that threat.

It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as Israel. That’s why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone.

Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it.

Appeasers hate those who confront evil.

Haviv Rettig Gur giver i Times of Israel et fremragende portræt af Obama og hans foragt for Israels premierminister Benjamin Netanyahu

At a recent gathering of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, the eminent former director general of the Foreign Ministry, Prof. Shlomo Avineri, called Obama’s foreign policy “provincial.” It was a strange choice of words to describe the policies of a president with such a cosmopolitan outlook and so much eagerness to engage the world.

But Avineri had a point.

Obama’s remarkable memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” includes a powerful account of how his experiences as a young, keenly observant social organizer in South Chicago instilled in him the sensibility that would come to define his presidency.

In the book, he describes his reaction upon hearing the children of a poor Chicago neighborhood divided into “good kids and bad kids – the distinction didn’t compute in my head.” If a particular child “ended up in a gang or in jail, would that prove his essence somehow, a wayward gene…or just the consequences of a malnourished world?”

“In every society, young men are going to have violent tendencies,” an educator in one majority-black Chicago high school told him in the late 1980s. “Either those tendencies are directed and disciplined in creative pursuits or those tendencies destroy the young men, or the society, or both.”

The book is full of such ruminations, and they echo throughout Obama’s rhetoric as president. In his last speech to the UN General Assembly, he asserted that “if young people live in places where the only option is between the dictates of a state or the lure of an extremist underground, no counterterrorism strategy can succeed.”

For Obama, terrorism is, at root, a product of social disintegration. War may be necessary to contain the spread of Islamic State, for example, but only social reform can really cure it.

Add to this social vision the experience of a consummate outsider – half-white and half-black, with a childhood and a family scattered around the world – and one begins to see the profile of a man with an automatic empathy for the marginalized and an almost instinctive sense that the most significant problems of the world are rooted not in ideology but in oppressive social and economic structures that reinforce marginalization. This sensibility is broader than any economic orthodoxy, and is rooted in the hard experience of South Chicago.

After taking the helm of the world’s preeminent superpower in January 2009, this social organizer set about constructing a foreign policy that translated this consciousness into geopolitical action.

“The imperative that he and his advisors felt was not only to introduce a post-Bush narrative but also a post-post-9/11 understanding of what needed to be done in the world,” James Traub noted in a recent Foreign Policy essay. “They believed that the great issues confronting the United States were not traditional state-to-state questions, but new ones that sought to advance global goods and required global cooperation — climate change, energy supply, weak and failing states, nuclear nonproliferation. It was precisely on such issues that one needed to enlist the support of citizens as well as leaders.”

The world was one large Chicago, its essential problems not categorically different from those of South Chicago’s blacks, and the solutions to those problems were rooted in the same essential human capacity for overcoming social divisions and inequities. This was Obama’s “provincialism” — his vision of the world that favored the disadvantaged and downtrodden, that saw the ideological and political clashes between governments as secondary to the more universal and ultimately social crises that troubled a tumultuous world.

Republikanerne erkender ondskaben og forærede Netanyahu en bronzebuste af Churchill.

Ferguson: To betjente skudt

To politibetjente i den amerikanske by Ferguson er blevet skudt skriver Daily Mail

Two police officers have been shot outside the police headquarters in Ferguson where the shooting of a black teenager by a white officer sparked a wave of angry protests across the U.S. last year.

Gunfire erupted during protests following the resignation of Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson late last night as angry scuffles broke out between officers and the public.

A 32-year-old officer from nearby Webster Groves was shot in the face and a 41-year-old officer from St Louis County was shot in the shoulder, St Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said.

Both were taken to hospital, where Belmar said they were conscious, but described their injuries as ’serious’ without giving further details.

‘These police officers were standing there and they were shot, just because they were police officers, he added.

A few dozen demonstrators fled following the gunfire, with some screaming that ‘they hit a cop’ around midnight, a photographer with Reuters said.

Nu venter vi på at Obama fordømmer attentatet, men udviser sin forståelse for vreden. Og måske tillige betror os at det kunne være hans egen søn der skød? Vinklen i medierne kører over en bred karm på netop den pointe, den retfærdige vrede mod et racistiske politi. Og de kan bakke påstanden op med en undersøgelse fra Department of Justice, der blev udgivet tidligere på måneden. Information kaldte det en chock-rapport

Statistikken taler sit tydelige sprog. I Ferguson er 67 pct. af befolkningen sort, men i perioden 2012-14 var hele 85 pct. af bilerne, der blev stoppet af politiet, ejet af afroamerikanere. Sorte udgjorde 88 pct. af dem, der blev udsat for politivold og 93 pct. af de arresterede i 2012-14 var sorte.

Så tydeligt taler statistikken dog ikke. Kriminelle bliver oftere uretmæssigt stoppet en lovlydige borgere (i en blanding af almindelig fremtoning og genkendelse ved gengangere) og sorte er blot mere kriminelle end ikke-sorte - af forskellige årsager, grangiveligt. Men der er mistanke om et mafiøst system, da kommunen er tilskyndet til at balancere sine budgetter, gennem bøder fortæller Information videre

Bag tallene skjuler sig et hvidt magtsystem, der ikke alene forskelsbehandler sorte. I Ferguson og – hævder sorte amerikanske ledere – i andre byer landet rundt med afroamerikanske beboere anvender politi og civile myndighedspersoner loven til at udbytte den fattige og sårbare del af befolkningen økonomisk.

I Ferguson giver det sig udslag i åbenlys pengeafpresning af sagesløse borgere med det ene formål at inddrive så store indtægter som muligt til dækning af de relativt høje lønninger, som politi, dommere, embedsmænd og kommunalpolitikere får.

I dette mafiøse magtsystem præmieres politibetjente af kommunalpolitikere for at pålægge borgerne så mange og så store bøder som muligt for alle mulige forseelser, der ofte – ifølge rapporten – er uberettigede og i alle tilfælde intet har at gøre med politiets hovedopgave: at beskytte borgerne.

Retten er underlagt politimesteren, hvorfor det står dommerne frit at afvise anker og fordoble og tredoble bøder, hvis ’synderen’ betaler for sent eller ikke har tilstrækkeligt med penge til at betale det fulde beløb. Domstolen sender jævnligt skyldnere i fængsel. Alene i 2014 var 9.000 af de omkring 21.000 borgere i Ferguson en kort tur bag tremmer. 95 pct. af disse var sorte.

Igen, racisme antages at ligge til grund, når systemet måske blot er udgjort af almindeligt dumme svin. Think Progress har samlet nogle eksempler på racisme, eller i hvert fald på sorte der er blevet behandlet skandaløst. Men når man smider Oscars efter Selma som kompensation for de penge negertragedien ikke kunne indtjene selv så er det fordi jorden for længst er gødet. Hollywwod elsker racisme meget mere end amerikanerne gider praktisere den. Samuel L Jackson ville have sine medcelebriteter til at synge om de racistiske politi, Charlie Shee

Så der kan være andre grunde end indebrændt vrede over at blive undertrykt som forklaring på attentatet på de to betjente. Demontranter i Ferguson krævede Darren Wilson dræbt og mente at USA var racistisk på grund af de hvide. Darren Wilson var den betjent, der i selvforsvar skød og dræbte Michael Brown også kaldet The Gentle Giant. Der fulgte krav om genopbygning, for ellers… Samme ånd gik igennem andre byer. I New York krævede demonstranter højlydt død over politibetjente og to beskikkede forsvarere deltog i en rap med samme død-over-politiet tema. Og Ferguson kunne endda bruges til angreb på Israel og jøder - hvad kan ikke det?

fergusonpalestine

ferguson-jews-control-everything

Darren Wilson blev frikendt i en omstridt høring. Omstridt ikke fordi den rent juridisk var unødvendig, da der ikke eksisterede grund til at rejse tiltale mod Wilson og dermed ingen grund til en høring. Men omstridt fordi anklageren, der gav efter for ballademagernes trusler om vold i gaderne, prøvede at dele sol og vind lige, ved at lade Wilson føre et forsvar, hvad der ikke er en hørings formål.

På Think Progress fandt man ligheder med en anden selvforsvarssag mistænkelig. Her mente man, at den hvide politimand Darren Wilsons forklaring lignede George Zimmermann, den jødiske hispanic, der i selvforsvar dræbte den sorte Trayvon Martin, ubehageligt meget

The description is eerily similar to another lethal confrontation with an unarmed black teen in broad daylight: the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, told police that the teen “jumped out from the bushes” and punched him in the face, knocking him down. “I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breathe,” he said. “He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode.”

Zimmerman also claimed Martin put his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth and nose and told him, “You’re going to die tonight.”

Both Zimmerman and Darren Wilson told officials that the young men they killed had their hands in their waistbands—suggesting they feared the presence of a weapon when there was none.

Throughout his testimony, Wilson repeatedly referenced Brown’s size, calling him “really big,” “obviously bigger than I was,” and saying he felt “like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan,” though the two men were about the same height.

Later, describing the moment right after he first fired the first bullet, he said Brown “looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon.” In other places, he describes Brown in animalistic terms (“he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound”) and supernatural ones (“it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots”).

Zimmerman offered a vaguer physical description, telling a 911 dispatcher that Martin looked like “real suspicious guy” and saying: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something.”

Both Zimmerman and Wilson are free men today, in part because of these accounts and descriptions provided to law enforcement and the courts. Though the public may never know exactly what happened on those days, research shows that hidden biases often lead people to see African Americans as aggressive, superhuman and less vulnerable to pain.

At store bøller er store bøller og derfor beskrives som store bøller (pyha, der undgik jeg at skrive at alle niggere er ens) var typisk hvad der undslap mediernes dækning. Den var fokuseret på fortællinger om virkeligheden udenb at tage virkeligheden i betragtning. For at hamre deres pointe hjem så viste Think Progress, som snart sagt alle andre medier et billede af the gentle giant Darren Brown med studenterhue ved siden af et børnebillede af Trayvon Martin

mikebrown-trayvonmartin

Hvad der dog især lignede hinanden ved fortællingerne var mediernes heksejagt. Breitbart skrev

New York Times had no qualms whatsoever about publishing almost all the information needed for Officer Darren Wilson’s enemies to track him and his wife down at home:

Officer Wilson and [his wife] own a home together on XXXXXXX Lane in XXXXXXXXXX, Mo., a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.

This malicious move by the New York Times has not gone unnoticed by Ferguson’s protesters:

But printing his street name in the nation’s most influential newspaper on the day the grand jury is expected to hand up a decision on the indictment could reignite interest in — and awareness of — the location, and some critics worry that it could result in protesters descending on his home. Slate even went a step further than the Times, publishing an article featuring a photo of the modest, red-brick house on Monday.

A number of Twitter users — some of whom have identified themselves as planning to protest the grand jury decision — have tweeted the location of Wilson’s home as they gear up for rallies. The house number was not printed in the Times, but the street in the St. Louis suburb of Crestwood where it sits is only about two blocks long, and the house number can be easily located via online sources using only the street name and Wilson’s name.

This type of behavior is nothing new from our elite media. When the media was pulling out the stops to electronically lynch George Zimmerman like they are Wilson, CNNbroadcast Zimmerman’s Social Security number to the world.

Thomas Sowell beskrev ligeledes mediernes samspil med pøblen. Og medierne havde deres historie. Jonah Goldberg skrev dengang

Brown wasn’t a person who allegedly robbed a convenience store. He was a stand-in for racial injustice. That’s what was so powerful about Brown’s (probably mythological) “hands up” gesture.

The outrage that followed when the convenience store robbery video was released and details from the grand jury were leaked was at least in part fury at having the narrative muddied. No one likes to see fresh gospel fact-checked. No one wants to hear that their martyr was in fact no angel. And, in the case of Wilson, no one wants to see their demon humanized.

Jesper Steinmetz rapporterede for TV2 News samme dag kendelsen faldt at også sortejede butikker blev stukket i brand, hvilket for ham viste, at der var elementer blandt demonstranterne, der slet ikke respekterer det lille by-samfund. Den indre racisme i den logik var tabt for den samlede presses dækning. Andre grunde til at nogle butikker gik fri skyldtes dog det frie initiativ

tattooguns777-thumb-550x366

Den sorte kultur har kørt sig selv ned i en selvretfærdig skruestik af offergørelse. Og fortællingen er så sexet af løsningens banaliteter virker komiske

Hvem kender Verden?

Barak Hussein Obama, Historie, Obama, Pressen, USA, venstrefløjen — Drokles on February 20, 2015 at 5:02 am

- “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,”

Det sagde Sarah Palin i 2008 og hvor blev der grinet. Det beviste at hun i hvert fald ikke kendte Verden. I 2012 advarede Mitt Romney om Ruslands syn på Ukraine og sine naboer generelt og lovede at han, hvis han blev præsident i stedet for Obama, ikke ville “wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin”, til hvilket Obama morsomt svarede

- “You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”

Fra Guardian 19/2 2015

At least one of the two Russian Bear bombers that were escorted away from the Cornish coast entered British airspace, a witness has claimed, contrary to the official version of events.

The apparent incursion, the latest in a series by Russian warplanes amid heightened tension between the two countries, prompted David Cameron to say Moscow was trying to make “some sort of point”. But if encroachment into British airspace was confirmed, the UK government would face pressure to respond more forcefully.

The Ministry of Defence denies that the planes entered British airspace. However, Sue Bamford, from Bodmin, said she witnessed at least one of the bombers flying inland, over Cornwall, while she was having a driving lesson on Wednesday afternoon.

Det kan godt være at man gerne vil have en forandring, men virkeligheden står ikke på valg. Den står på erkendelse.

Muslimerkongen er død

Kong Abdullah af Saudiarabien er død og verdens statsledere har udtalt deres sorg over den store mand. Her nogle reaktioner samlet af den venstreorienterede Think Progress

King Abdullah, 90, who died early Friday morning, is being hailed as a reformer, despite condoning human rights abuses and forwarding only very measured efforts to promote democracy in his oil-rich nation.

One of the most scrutinized aspects of the Saudi Arabia’s rights’ record is its so-called “male guardianship system,” women are not allowed to travel, obtain a passport, marry, or continue their education without the approval of a male relative.

The King’s own daughters are hardly an exception to the harsh rule. Four of his daughters claim that the are being forcibly held in a dilapidated palace with little in the way of food and water. “Our father said that we had no way out,” Sahar Al Saud, 42, wrote in an email to the British broadcast network Channel 4, “And that after his death our brothers will continue detaining us.”

“We are just an example of so many families, of what so many women, go through. Just a tiny, tiny example,” the princess who once enjoyed international skiing and shopping trips said.

(…)

President Barack Obama praised the king for having “the courage of his convictions,” and for promoting security in the region, but steered clear of commenting on Saudi Arabian social policies.

“In a very discreet way, he was a strong advocate of women,” Christine Lagarde the head of the International Monetary Fund said from the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland.

Even news reports heralded King Abdullah’s track record on civil rights, though the laudatory language was often followed by only vague or contradictory examples from his 9-year tenure as the head of Saudi Arabia.

CNN called him “a cautious reformer” citing “steps toward broader freedoms” without giving clear examples. The New York Times Douglas Martin and Ben Hubbard referred to the autocratic ruler as a “force of moderation,” although the already tempered phrase was followed by examples in which the King failed to carry out the reforms he publicly vowed to carry out.

(…)

On Friday, Saudi authorities again postponed the flogging of the progressive blogger Raif Badawi. Although the British foreign secretary raised concerns about brutal sentence awaiting the blogger with the Saudi ambassador to Britain prime minister was among those praising King Abdullah’s commitment to his people.

“He will be remembered for his long years of service to the kingdom, for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths,” David Cameron said.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-01-27-kl-074444

Flere og overlappende reaktioner her. Også tidligere præsident George Bush var ked af den store mands død, som han skrev på Facebook

“Laura and I are saddened by the death of a man I admire and with whom I was honored to work. I have very fond memories of my visits to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and of the King’s visit to our ranch in Crawford. He was an important and able ally and a force for modernization in his country. King Abdullah served his nation honorably with strength and vision. We send our heartfelt condolences to the King’s family and all who will miss him.”

bush-og-kong-abdullah

Islam opstod, som bekendt, på den arabiske halvø som en kodificering af arabisk kultur og moral. Som islam spredte sig udvikledes et væld af variationer, så man hurtigt ikke længere kunne tale om et islam. Seneste skud på stammen er islamisk stat, hvis forskelle og ligheder i forhold til den saudiske variant gør enhver islamofob til skamme. Washington Post stiller det pædagogisk op

b7z1hcscuaelirf

Disses væsensforskellige forskel i samfundsindretning kommer af den fleksibilitet, der er i islams lære, her i sammenligning med koranen

comparingquranis
Og i praksis er der da også milevid forskel på Islamisk stat og kalifatet. Daily Telegraph skriver om lov og orden i den nye Islamisk Stat

On January 15, 2015, the Islamic State (ISIS) released a collection of images showing the enforcement of the hudud (Koranic punishment) in Ninawa, Iraq. The images show the execution of two men convicted of homosexuality by throwing them from a tall building; the crucifixion of two men convicted of armed theft; and the stoning of a woman convicted of adultery.

g

i

Således holdes der også orden i Saudiarabien på åben gade

Som man kan se, helt forskellige straffemetoder, der vidner om islams mange ansigter. Men det er den samme folkelige deltagelse, der vidner om islam som fredens religion

Fremtiden må ikke tilhøre de, der håner islams grundlægger

Således udtalte den amerikanske president Obama fra FNs talerstol i 2012. Obama mente ved denne lejlighed, hvad han sagde da han allerede havde fået en Mark Basseley Youssef fængslet for at fornærme islam på Youtube. Den klimaængstelige Pave har erklæret at han er villig til vold, hvis nogen fornærmer hans mor som en analogi til hans mening om ytringsfrihed kontra religiøse følelser og Tyrkiets Erdogan vil have EU til at slå ned på islamofobi.

“Profen er blevet hævnet!” skreg de muslimske terrorister i Paris gader efter at have massakreret ansatte på Charlie Hebdo. Muslimer tager ikke let på islam og deres grundlægger Muhammed. Det arabiske forårs redningsmand i Ægypten, præsident Al-Sisi advarede i sin nytårstale opsigtsvækkende mod de farer islam indeholdt. “Vi frastøder hele verden” advarede han og kaldte på nødvendigheden for en ‘religiøs revolution’

That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live? Impossible!

Det Al-Sisis Ægypten, “avantgarden inden for liberal islam”, som en ven spydigt kaldte det, hvor den seneste udgave af Charlie Hebdo vækker vrede, muslimernes eneste følelse, dømte få dage senere en mand 3 års fængsel for ateisme. Det er selvfølgelig en mildere straf end i Saudiarabien, hvor en tilsvarende forbrydelse er 10 år og 1000 piskeslag. Muslimer er glade for massakren eller i det mindste massakrens resultat, at man har slået et slag for islam. Både i Pakistan og på Filippinerne har der været demonstrationer.

Og det har medierne mærket og i stort tal og med en skræmmende selvfølgelig rettet sig efter. Først herhjemme var Jyllands-Posten, der i det mindste ikke hyklede og forståeligt nok frygtede for yderligere repressalier til at melde ud at de ikke agtede at trodse muslimerne.

»Jeg fastholder retten som redaktør til at kunne trykke alle slags tegninger igen på et tidspunkt. Det bliver bare ikke lige nu,« siger ansvarshavende chefredaktør Jørn Mikkelsen.

(…)

Er det ikke netop nu journalistisk relevant at vise danskerne, hvilket blad Charlie Hebdo er ved at bringe nogle af bladets tegninger?

”Bestemt, det forklarer vores korrespondenter over en hel side i dagens avis.”

Men én ting er at forklare – noget andet er at vise læserne, hvad Charlie Hebdos tegnere har tegnet. Hvorfor trykker JP ikke den dokumentation?

”Det har vi i vores situation måttet fravælge.”

Udøver Jyllands-Posten selvcensur af hensyn til egen sikkerhed?

Nej, vi praktiserer en nødvendig omtanke. Jyllands-Posten står i en helt særlig situation. Der gælder en særlig virkelighed for netop os. Vi er nødt til at udvise ekstra agtpågivenhed. Jeg fastholder retten som redaktør til at kunne trykke alle slags tegninger igen på et tidspunkt. Det bliver bare ikke lige nu. Den samme debat kører på nu 10. år, for eller imod tegninger med mere. Vi skal videre.

Både Politiken, Berlingske og Information har vurderet, at det er journalistisk relevant at vise Hebdo-tegninger i dagens aviser. Hvad mener du om, at det netop er Jyllands-Posten, der ikke bringer tegningerne?

(…)

I 2006 stod Charlie Hebdo skulder ved skulder med Jyllands-Posten og bragte blandt andet de tolv Muhammed-tegninger. Svigter Jyllands-Posten nu sin ven?

”Vi føler meget stærkt for kollegerne på Charlie Hebdo og vore kolleger. De stod netop last og brast med os. Vi har valgt, hvad vi mener, er den rette løsning for os. Jyllands-Postens situation er helt speciel. Vi skal finde ud af at dække denne meget vigtige historie, samtidig med at vi stadig er en stor del af den. Det er ikke nemt,” svarer Jørn Mikkelsen.

Men andre ledende medier hykler, ikke mindste Danmarks Radio, der har det som en af sine public sevice opgaver at sikre ytringsfriheden, men som fik kolde fødder og valgte at aflyse DR2s ellers annoncerede dokumentar om Charlie Hebdo. “Vi vil gerne kigge på, om den bringer noget nyt eller et nyt perspektiv i forhold til der, hvor vi aktuelt står.” forklarede DR2s kanalchef, Michael Thouber. DR2 Deadline vært Adam Holm, skal til “kammeratlig samtale“med DRs nyhedsdirektør, Ulrik Haagerup for under et interview med Flemming Rose at have vist seerne Jyllands-Postens Muhammedtegninger. På Sky News var man hurtigere end Haagerup og afbrød et interview da tegningerne kom frem

Det største fallit kom dog fra New York Daily, der havde dette forræderi mod en kollegas kamp og eftermæle

charlie-hebdo-pixelated

Mange danske kiosker, eller måske rettere kiosker i danmark, undslog sig fra at sælge Charlie Hebdos første udgivelse efter massakren i Paris, skrev TV2. Torben Mark Petersen skriver klogt

Trykkefrihedsselskabet offentliggør tegningerne, men ingen medier vil mig bekendt følge opfordringen. Heller ikke Doxa. Så langt rakte modet alligevel ikke. Flere danske aviser vil i solidaritet med Charlie Hebdo offentliggøre Charlie Hebdo-forsiden – men ikke JP’ Muhammedtegninger.

Vi er godt på vej til at miste ytringsfriheden, når alle de store dagblade og begge de statsejede elektroniske medier bøjer sig for islams billedforbud af frygt.

På chefredaktionerne slår de krøller på sig selv og vrider sig for at undgå at indrømme, at de udøver selvcensur. Eller leger omvendt-leg ved at erklære, at ”Vi vil ikke lade os hverken true eller provokere til at trykke de gamle tegninger igen,…” når det præcis er dét, de gør – mens de gemmer sig bag forblommede ord om ”journalistisk relevans”.

Det er en direkte hån mod de dræbte fra Charlie Hebdo – og mod alle andre, der sætter liv (eller karriere) på spil i kampen for ytringsfriheden – at kalde det en provokation at offentliggøre JP’s Muhammedtegning. Det er ikke en provokation, men en frihedskamp, for hvis ikke ytringsfriheden praktiseres, når den kommer under angreb, så mister vi den. Så kommer sharialovens billedforbud til at gælde i Danmark, og vejen er åben for yderligere islamisering.

Borset fra Uriasposten, Snaphanen og Hodja har jeg de seneste år regnet de uafhængige politiske blogs for et endt kapitel. De etablerede medier har samlet masser af bloggere med skarpe penne og relevante og præcise indlæg til at presse debatten frem mod en erkendelse af vikeligheden. Men som redaktionerne på de forskellige etablerede medier reagerer stadigt mere ængsteligt og selvindbilsk er underskoven af uafhængige medier og aktivitet på sociale netværk nødvendig som sjældent før. Ytringsfrihed forsvares ikke med skåltaler eller fremmøde i Fri Debat og Trykkefrihedsselskabet. Den forsvares ved at blive brugt so vi finder det for godt.

USAs Obama og Canadas Stephen Harper reagerer forskelligt på Charlie Hebdo massakren

Lederen af den frie verden lod sin talsmand erklære krig mod islamofobi i kølvandet på Charlie Hebdo massakren skriver Breitbart

There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.

Islam er fredens religion og skam få den, der tænker ilde på baggrund af muslimers myrderier på Muhammeds utvetydige befalinger. Mod nord ligger USAs traditionelt feminine nabo Canada og her udtalte premierministeren sig således (irriterende lyd)

Victor Davies Hanson om Obamaæraen, der rinder ud

Hanson skrev forleden i National Review at den amerikanske vensfløj (liberalism) lå i ideologiske ruiner. “Barack Obama has accomplished, in the fashion of British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in the Twenties and Thirties, will be to avoid minor confrontations on his watch — if he is lucky — while ensuring catastrophic ones for his successors.” konkluderede han og pegede på de 11 mio. illegale indvandrere, som, hvis det står til Obama, skal have amerikansk pas. Hanson minder ikke blot om at prisen først og fremmest betales af den amerikanske middelklasse og de nye jobsøgende, men at de iblandt de illegale, hvis tilstedeværelse i USA i første omgang er gjort mulig at de har brudt amerikansk lov findes en stor minoritet, der ikke deltager aktivt eller lovlydigt i det amerikanske samfund.

Henover den sekulære dyrkelse af klimaet “that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning” til Obamas opdyrkelse af racestridigheder fra Trayvon Martin til Michael Brown, godt assisteret af mediernes memer

After the disastrous Obama tenure, the U.S. will either return to the melting pot and the idea that race and tribe are incidental, not essential, to our characters, or it will eventually go the way of all dysfunctional societies for which that was not true — Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq.

Og Hanson ender med følgende skudsmål

Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and Obamacare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012; and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Eric Holder – with his jet-setting to sporting events on the public dime, spouting inflammatory racialist rhetoric, politicizing the Justice Department, selectively enforcing settled law, and being held in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents — managed what one might have thought impossible: He has made Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell seem a minor rogue in comparison.

Men det er udenrigspolitikken der har lidt værst, midt i en periode med stigende udfordringer. Hanson skriv i går ligeledes i National Review at der er paralleller

We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices — a good thing for most of the world — will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.

Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit-card holders.

NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country such as Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon.

The United States has slashed its defense budget to historic lows. It sends the message abroad that friendship with America brings few rewards while hostility toward the U.S. has even fewer consequences.

The bedrock American relationships with staunch allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, and Israel are fading. Instead, we court new belligerents that don’t like the United States, such as Turkey and Iran.

Og

Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic — but often relatively weaker — power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.

What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventive vigilance that might have stopped it.

“Vi vælger at rejse til Månen” proklamerede Kennedy på Rice University i 1962, “Ikke fordi det er let, men fordi det er svært!”.

[B]ecause that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win

For Kennedy æraen handlede det om at presse sig selv mod nye mål. “Yes we can” derimod sigter til det vi allerede kan. Det fornægter på sin vis ‘american exeptionalism’ i stedet for den teoretiske akademikers drøm om at kunne omdefinere verden væk fra dens iboende problemer. “Yes we can” siger ikke meget andet end at man vil gøre, hvad der er let, frem for, hvad der er rigtigt.

Robert Spencer om hvorvidt Islamisk Stat er islamisk

Vi er i krig - og det er med islam

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Indvandring, Jihad, Kalifatet, Multikultur, Muslimer, Obama, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on October 4, 2014 at 9:54 am

Politikere tror de ændre verden med ord. Trods alt kan de ændre deres karriere med ord. Men at sætte en dagsorden for en tid er ikke det samme som at bestemme over virkeligheden. Man kan ikke definere sig ud af problemerne, højst skjule dem en rum til ; til efter valget eller bedre tider (hvad der kommer først). Politikerne kan ikke frit bestemme om det at angribe med militære midler er en krig eller ej for krig er krig uanset civiliserede spidsfindigheder. Politiken har en glimrende oplysningsmættet og pædagogisk artikel, der uddyber, hvad Thorning mente, da hun sagde at vi teknisk ikke var i krig

Hvis man ser stringent på juraen, så er Danmark ikke i krig. For selve det juridiske begreb »krig« blev afskaffet for omkring 65 år siden, fortæller jurist og ph.d. Peter Vedel Kessing, der er seniorforsker ved Institut for Menneskerettigheder.

»Krig er et begreb, man ikke bruger i folkeretten længere. Det brugte man i gamle dage før Anden Verdenskrig, men det blev afskaffet i 1949 med Geneve-konventionen«, fortæller han.

I stedet taler Geneve-konventionen om »væbnede konflikter«. Altså konflikter, hvor der bliver brugt våben til at løse dem. Konventionen opstiller en række regler og retningslinjer, som skal overholdes i disse konflikter.

Når man droppede ordet »krig«, så skyldes det, at begrebet var blevet for politisk, og at det var blevet uklart, hvad det præcist betød. Der var derfor brug for et stringent juridisk begreb, og det blev altså »væbnet konflikt«. Så langt så godt. Danmark er altså juridisk set ikke i krig, for krig findes ikke som juridisk begreb.

LÆS ARTIKELBredt flertal har stemt ja: Danmark går endnu engang i krig

Dertil kommer, at der er to former for væbnede konflikter.

Den ene er en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Her kan vi nævne krigen mellem Iran og Irak i 1980′erne, men mere relevant for nutidens dagsorden er krigen mellem Irak og den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, herunder Danmark. Dengang i 2003 var Danmark i international væbnet konflikt med Irak. Vi var - i folkemunde - i krig.

Der gik dog ikke længe, før Iraks diktator Saddam Hussein var væltet, og dermed ophørte den internationale væbnede konflikt. Der kom en ny irakisk regering, og da landet ikke blev mere fredeligt af, at Saddam Hussein var væk - snarere tværtimod - så bad den irakiske regering Danmark og andre lande om at blive i landet og hjælpe med at skabe sikkerhed.

Med base i Basra var Danmark altså ikke længere part i en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Derimod hjalp vi en stat med at beskytte sig mod forskellige oprørsgrupper, der truede staten Irak. Vi blev ifølge juraen i Geneve-konventionen part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt.

Og nu gentager historien sig. I samme land.

»Med beslutningen om at deltage i koalitionen med kampfly er Danmark dermed part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt. Vi hjælper den irakiske regering med at nedkæmpe en oprørsgruppe, nemlig Islamisk Stat«, siger Peter Vedel Kessing.

Men krig er krig uanset hjemlig politisk indpakning og folkeretsligt juristeri (sjovt i øvrigt så meget fokus man har på at skelne mellem de forskellige former for væbnet konflikt når man mindes den unuancerede harme over amerikanernes juridiske og administrative dilemmaer med non-combatanter og Gitmo). Politikerne kan heller ikke tale sig ud af, hvem der føler sig angrebet. Når Vesten begynder at bombe ISIS nede i muslimland så føler muslimerne sig angrebet. Det betyder ikke en pind, hvor meget Obama, Cameron og Thorning forsikrer at det ikke er islam de bomber, men nogen der  ikke er rigtige muslimer og som udnytter islam. Særligt slemme var Venstres hårde hund Inger Støjberg, der talte om en ugudelig misfortolkning på sin FB side, kun overgået af hendes formand og Danmarks måske kommende statsminister Lars Løkke, der i msiforstået hensyn mente at islam var blevet voldtaget af ISIS. Virkeligt? Når muslimmænd går amok i vrede og råber ‘jeg knepper dig’ som den ultimative hån, så finder Løkke det religiøst sensitivt at sige at islam er sådan noget som bliver kneppet for alle at se? Men uanset hvad vestlige ledere end måtte bedyre så mener muslimer sig under angreb. Islam er et hele, en nation, den hedder Umma. Det svarer til at vi bombede Hong Kong mens vi bedyrede hvilken skændsel det var for det rigtige Kina.

End ikke oprørene i Syrien er begejstrede, som man kan læse i Syria Pulse

Several rebel factions have issued statements of dissatisfaction with the alliance’s strikes for not targeting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Hazem movement said in a statement obtained by Al-Monitor, “The airstrikes are considered a violation of national sovereignty and an attack against the Syrian revolution. We will only work according to the revolution’s priorities, not according to the will of the international alliance.”

Hazem, which falls within the category of the moderate opposition and was among the first groups that received US TOW missiles, said, “The only side benefiting from the foreign intervention in Syria is Assad’s regime, especially in the absence of a real strategy to topple it.”

The movement condemned the deaths of civilians following the alliance’s raids on Idlib and Homs. One of the inhabitants who had returned from Kfar Daryan in the Aleppo countryside told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity that 12 civilians had been killed by the alliance’s raids, most of them children from the Barakat family, saying, “Four shells targeted Jabhat al-Nusra’s locations, but the fifth one fell on the town and killed the inhabitants of two houses that were completely destroyed.”

Og ifølge teksten til videoen herunder så går moderate muslimer i Syrien i solidaritets demonstration i protest mod bombningerne af ISIS

The Ahrar al-Sham “moderate” rebel group that belongs to the “Islamic Front” conglomerate of “moderate” Islamist brigades, which is mainly supported - both financially and militarily - by Saudi Arabia, came out today in support of the “Islamic State” (aka ISIL or ISIS) and al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra terror groups against the US-led coalition. Protestors can be seen in Houla (Homs province) carrying ISIL flags and shouting slogans against the establishment of a secular state.

Og herhjemme var Erik Westergaard til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus og beskrev sin oplevelse på Facebook

For et par uger siden var jeg til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus. Jeg søgte ud over oplevelsen, nogle konkrete informationer og mere viden om bestemte ting. Det var en ret voldsom oplevelse og stemningen var mildt sagt noget trykket for den ene hvide mand, blandt ca. 300 knap så hvide mænd !

Sidst mødte jeg bla. 3 meget forskellige mænd som jeg alle efterfølgende har talt med. Det har medført yderligere et besøg ved fredagsbønnen i dag. Hvis der var sort af mennesker sidst, var det intet at regne for deltagelsen i dag.

Det var umuligt at finde en parkeringsplads i nærheden, så jeg parkerede på en mark over 400 meter væk. Der var mindst 3-400 biler i området og så mange mennesker at jeg må sige +500 i og omkring moskeen. Bemærkede 3 biler hvori der sad “danske” kvinder, de sad der også jeg kom tilbage, måske de ventede, det så sådan ud !

Var stemningen træls sidst, var den direkte modbydelig denne gang, men for sent…. jeg havde allerede taget skoene af. Jeg blev hurtigt glad for at have været der før og derfor “kendte stedet”. Der var rigtig mange der meget gerne lige ville ha et par ord med mig… Hvad laver du her, tar du billeder, er du fra politi, er du journalist osv. osv. Prøvede med humoren, men den virker bare ikke her ! Så det var stoneface og fuld skrue på entreen.

Imamen - der sidst gik frisk til opgaven - gik fra start yderligere 2-3 trin/niveauer op ad stigen og både råbte og skreg og jeg skal love for der blev udbasuneret nogle budskaber ! Stemningen var bare alt andet end hjertelig.

Ved et tilfælde mødte jeg en af mine “nye venner” Ahmed, der noget forbløffet spurgte hvad jeg lavede der ? “Det samme som dig, svarede jeg….. Sender lidt bønner afsted.

“Du er ikke rask… du må gå, sagde han. Det er ikke i dag du skal være her. Mange er ikke glade….
Bingo…. så faldt 10øren (dumme jyde) Havde et kort øjeblik glemt vi i går morges havde sendt 7 stk. F16 til Mellemøsten for at bombe !! Og det var i høj grad det der var galt !

Selv om jeg til tider står lidt lavt i tændingen, fattede jeg budskabet og fortrak inden bønnen var færdig. Jeg gik før alle samles oppe foran Imamen. Heldigvis nåede jeg at tale med yderligere 2 mennesker, hvilket jeg fik en del ud af, så forgæves var det ikke.

På vejen ud tog jeg en hurtig selfie, hvilket lynhurtigt fik 3 unge Somaliere til at samles om mig for at spørge om jeg tog billeder. Nej svarede jeg - jeg sælger kun billeder, men det er en anden historie ! Jeg fortrak og noterede mig, at der nu også ved Grimøjmoskeen ses IS flag i bilerne (2 stk.). Politiet kunne i øvrigt med nogen succes, aflægge stedet et besøg en fredag, sidst var der 2 biler uden nummerplader, denne gang mindst 5.

Og fra den lokale afdeling af Mordor i København Mjølnerparken

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro-iii1

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro-ii

Og hverken i Danmark eller Holland er det nu sikkert at færdes i sin militæruniform i sit fædreland. Efterhånden som missionen med den væbnede intervenøse aktion eskalerer vil kontrasterne kun stå stadigt skarpere og skarpere mellem dem og os. Vi er i krig og fjenden bor i vores gader.

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..

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.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress