Børnekultur i De Renes Land

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Muslimer, Pakistan, islam, muhammed — Drokles on August 10, 2015 at 2:46 am

Fordi muslimernes forestilling om det perfekte menneske voldtog en 9-årig pige kan det være en ekstra udfordring for dem at etablere en kultur, hvor børn ikke opfattes som sexuelle objekter og deres grænser respekteres. Nation skriver om den pædofiliskandale  i De Renes Land Pakistan

Punjab’s leading child protection official has called for a federal inquiry into ‘the largest-ever child abuse scandal in Pakistan’s history’ after the discovery of 400 videos recording more than 280 children being forced to have sex.  Most of the victims were under 14 but include a six year old boy who was forced to perform a homosexual act and a 10 year old schoolgirl who was filmed being molested by a 14 year old boy.

Videos of these assaults were filmed and thousands of copies are believed to have been sold for Rs50 each in Hussain Khanwala village in Kasur district. One of the victims said he was injected in the spine with a drug before he was assaulted.

The scale of the scandal emerged earlier this week after the victims’ parents clashed police during a protest against their failure to prosecute the men who orchestrated the scandal. Two dozen people were injured when police used force to disperse more than 4,000 protesters on the Dipalpur Road near Dolaywala village in Kasur district on Tuesday who were calling for justice for the victims.
They have claimed that local police have tried to cover up the scandal and that the perpetrators have used their influence to avoid being charged.

Den muslimske invasion af Indien

Tarek Fatah henviser til dette uddrag fra den yderst anbefalelsesværdige “The Story of Civilization

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicatecomplex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they hadadopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in.For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. The firstMoslem attack was a passing raid upon Multan, in the western Punjab (664 A.D.) Similarraids occurred at the convenience of the invaders during the next three centuries, with theresult that the Moslems established themselves in the Indus valley about the same time thattheir Arab co-religionists in the West were fighting the battle of Tours (732 A.D.) for themastery of Europe.But the real Moslem conquest of India did not come till the turn of the first millennium afterChrist. In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of thelittle estate of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young andpoor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious.Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry, he swept across the frontier with aforce inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar,slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away theaccumulated treasures of centuries.Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewelsand unbored pearls and rubies shining like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, andemeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.”

Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amusedhis men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richerthan before.

At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted withprecious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewellery; heexpressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labour of two hundred years, and thenordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground.

Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, therichest king that history has ever known.Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold asslaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could befound to offer more than a few shillings for a slave.Before every important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of Godupon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years andhonours, Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of thegreatest sovereigns of any age.

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslemrulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction.In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi,destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish theSultanate of Delhi- an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, andchecked only by assassination and revolt. The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind -fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, “werebestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands.”In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), “fifty thousand mencame under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, removing their skins, stuffing these with straw and hanging them from the gatesof Delhi. When some Mongolian habitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted toIslam, attempted arising, Sultan Ala-ud-din (the conqueror of Chitor) had all the males -from fifteen to thirty thousand of them - slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a greatscholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy,surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to therebel’s wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste withpillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle.He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, “there was constantly infront of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging” the victims“and putting them to death in crowds.”

In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and leftit a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to bedragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when hislast journey was finished.

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice.He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invadedBengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for threedays whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reachedtwenty thousand.

These rulers were often men of ability, and their followers were gifted with fierce courageand industry; only so can we understand how they could have maintained their rule among ahostile people so overwhelmingly outnumbering them. All of them were armed with a religion militaristic in operation, but far superior in its stoicalmonotheism to any of the popular cults of India; they concealed its attractiveness by making the public exercise of the Hindu religions illegal, and thereby driving them more deeply intothe Hindu soul.Some of these thirsty despots had culture as well as ability; they patronized the arts, andengaged artists and artisans–usually of Hindu origin– to build for them magnificentmosques and tombs; some of them were scholars, and delighted in converse with historians,poets and scientists.One of the greatest scholars of Asia, Alberuni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India,and wrote a scientific survey of India comparable to Pliny’s “Natural History” andHumboldt’s “Cosmos”.

The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as the generals, and yielded nothing tothem in the enjoyment of bloodshed and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupeeof tribute that could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by straightforwardrobbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in India, and thereby turned them back into India’s economic life.Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening of Hindu physiqueand morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, politicaldisunity, and pessimistic religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Ala-ud-din, who required his advisersto draw up “rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.”

Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers hadtaken one-sixth. “No Hindu,” says a Moslem historian, “could hold up his head, and in theirhouses no sign of gold or silver…or of any superfluity was to be seen…. Blows, confinementin the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.” When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alauddin answered: “Oh,Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but Ihave a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive andobedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficientshall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not beallowed to accumulate and property.”

This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, itsuccumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficialdelusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worthdefending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.

1-mughal-india-kirpal-singh-bhai-mati-dass-ji-1024x766-1

The Muslim Issue, hvor ovenstående billede er hentet, har mere om den muslimske invasion af Indien.

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.

En tidligere Associated Press journalist beskriver mediernes anti-israelske fortælling

Matti Friedman arbejdede for det store nyhedsbureau Associated Press i Jerusalem mellem 2006 og 2011 og skønt han erklærer sig selv som venstredrejet (liberal i amerikansk terminologi) kan han ikke længere stå inde for, hvad han betegner som “a hostile obsession with Israel” i den almindelige nyhedsdækning. I en længere og højst anbefalelsesværdig artikel fra august i år i Tablet Magazine fortæller han om den overeksponering af Israel med sin tidligere arbejdsgiver som illustrativt eksempel. At de havde mere end 40 medarbejdere til at dække Israel-Palæstina, hvilket var mere end resten af Mellemøsten til sammen og kun ved særlige lejligheder vægtes andet end Israel højest.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP—the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

Det der er vigtigt i en Israel-Palæstina historie, argumenterer Friedman, er Israel. Palæstinenserne anerkendes ikke som selvstændige aktører  og eksisterer kun som passive ofre. Korruption er altid interessant, men kun israelsk. Friedman fortæller at han ikke kunne komme igennem med en artikel om palæstinensisk korruption fordi “that was not the story”. Således angribes enhver skævhed i det israelske samfund nidkært; Israelsks lovforslag til pressefrihed, antallet af ortodokse jøder, bosættelser, kønssegregering osv, mens der er meget få artikler om lignende palæstinensiske forhold.

Hamas formålserklæring, som handler om et udslette Israel og alle jøderne og deres graven terrortunneller ind under Israel er ikke vigtigt for medier og nyhedsbureauer, men det er derimod Israels angreb på Hamas. De fleste rapportere, siger Friedman, opfatter essensen af deres arbejde at rapportere om israelske overgreb: “That’s the essens of the Israel story”!

Og denne fortælling sættes ind i den ramme der hedder Israel-Palæstina konflikten eller variationer heraf. Her er det Israel, der er den store og dermed aggressoren hvor sandheden er at jøderne kun optager 0,2% af Mellemøsten og der er 5 millioner jøder overfor 300 mio. arabere. Det var den samlede arabiske verden, der ville udslette Israel fra begyndelsen og den palæstinensiske sag blev først interessant efter 1967 krigen, hvor Israel indtog de resterende områder fra delingsplanen fra Ægypten og Jordan, der ellers havde annekteret dem uden protester fra den arabiske verden.

For centuries, stateless Jews played the role of a lightning rod for ill will among the majority population. They were a symbol of things that were wrong. Did you want to make the point that greed was bad? Jews were greedy. Cowardice? Jews were cowardly. Were you a Communist? Jews were capitalists. Were you a capitalist? In that case, Jews were Communists. Moral failure was the essential trait of the Jew. It was their role in Christian tradition—the only reason European society knew or cared about them in the first place.

(…)

When the people responsible for explaining the world to the world, journalists, cover the Jews’ war as more worthy of attention than any other, when they portray the Jews of Israel as the party obviously in the wrong, when they omit all possible justifications for the Jews’ actions and obscure the true face of their enemies, what they are saying to their readers—whether they intend to or not—is that Jews are the worst people on earth. The Jews are a symbol of the evils that civilized people are taught from an early age to abhor. International press coverage has become a morality play starring a familiar villain.

(…)

You don’t need to be a history professor, or a psychiatrist, to understand what’s going on. Having rehabilitated themselves against considerable odds in a minute corner of the earth, the descendants of powerless people who were pushed out of Europe and the Islamic Middle East have become what their grandparents were—the pool into which the world spits. The Jews of Israel are the screen onto which it has become socially acceptable to project the things you hate about yourself and your own country. The tool through which this psychological projection is executed is the international press.

Men det er på alle måder den forkerte historie der fortælles, skriver Friedman. Reportere ser alt gennem en israelsk optik og ser derfor ikke islams undertrykkelse og forfølgelse af minoriteter, hvor der med ISIS nu er tale om folkemord

A knowledgeable observer of the Middle East cannot avoid the impression that the region is a volcano and that the lava is radical Islam, an ideology whose various incarnations are now shaping this part of the world. Israel is a tiny village on the slopes of the volcano. Hamas is the local representative of radical Islam and is openly dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish minority enclave in Israel, just as Hezbollah is the dominant representative of radical Islam in Lebanon, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so forth.

Hamas is not, as it freely admits, party to the effort to create a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It has different goals about which it is quite open and that are similar to those of the groups listed above. Since the mid 1990s, more than any other player, Hamas has destroyed the Israeli left, swayed moderate Israelis against territorial withdrawals, and buried the chances of a two-state compromise. That’s one accurate way to frame the story.

Men i mediernes og nyhedsbureauernes fortælling er Israel vulkanen, en vulkan der ikke eksisterer i den sammen geopolitiske virkelighed som resten af Melleøsten. Historen om Israel er ikke om nyheder men om “something else”.

Nuclear Secrets & Pakistan’s Terror Trader

Atomvåben, BBC, Jihad, Pakistan, Terror, islam — Drokles on December 26, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Nuclear Secrets & Pakistan’s Terror Trader from Tarek Fatah on Vimeo.

Monokultur kører på WordPress