Mentalitet

Medier, fagfolk og politikere har gjort det til en vane af affærdige ensomme ulve, der næsten altid synes at være godt assisteret, som værende psykisk ustabile socialt udsatte eksistenser. Belgisk politi har netop arresteret en 14 årig af slagsen og det er oveni de 29 andre ensomme jule-ulve.

Psykisk ustabile mennesker er fanget i deres egne unikke indre universer. Grupper opstår om noget medlemmerne deler. Selv hvis man som læser af Politiken skulle finde trøst i forklaringen om terroristens forvrængede virkelighed, kan man vanskeligt komme udenom at stille spørgsmålet; hvorfor er så mange muslimer, med de traditionelt grænsende over til det rent morderiske tætte sociale bånd, så udstødte psykofanter. For empirien løber ingen om hjørner med i sidste ende - man kan ikke skrive islam ud af ligningen for islamisk terrorisme.

For nyligt offentliggjorde Islamisk Stat en særligt grusom video i HD. To unge mænd, angiveligt tyrkiske soldater, bliver lukket ud af deres jern-bur i et goldt stenlandskab i Levanten, tvunget ned på alle fire og må kravle, ført som hunde, hen til eksekutions-stedet. Her blev de rejst op og via et langt bånd antændt og brændt ihjel i et roligt tempo, der tillader minutters dødskamp.

Deres dødsskrig akkompagnerer den hoverende islamiske messen, der danner det gennemgående lydspor, som det altid gør. Aldrig en pause for at tænke synes der at være i islamiske videoer. Det var en tilfredsstillende forestilling for jihad-krigerne, der som selve videoen svælgede i de grusomheder, man udsatte en i forvejen besejret og ydmyget fjende for.

Når eksperter og medier beflitter sig med Islamisk Stats propaganda videoer hæfter de sig ved at de er i HD kvalitet med en billedside, der mestrer både den lækre belysning, flere kamerastillinger og bevægelser, der fanger en koreograferet opsætning. Dette sættes i modsætning til Osama Bin Ladens grynede VHS bånd af ham selv, der holder monotone monologer i en hule i Bore Bora eller fra hans sidste bosted med den store pornosamling. Men, som jeg har skrevet før, så undgår eksperterne altid videoernes smertelige indhold, måske fordi konklusionen ikke er til at bære.

Propaganda skal lokke nye krigere til og islamisk stat lokker med grusomheder mod en slagen og ydmyget fjende. Kom og vær med, hug hoveder af, se dem vride sig i smerte, som flammerne fortærer dem, hør deres skrig, vær med til at nære angsten. Og deres målgruppe, muslimerne, lader sig lokke af de smukke billeder med det hellige indhold - skønt alt vi synes vores velfærdsregimer har gjort for at få dem inkluderet.

Julen er tid for religiøs krig, skriver Michael Finch i American Thinker og Syv migranter forsøgte at sætte ild på en hjemløs mand i Berlins undergrundsbane.  ‘Nogen andre’ forsøgte at brænde Emanuelskirken i Hamborg ned til grunden og i Sverige lykkedes det med et indkøbscenter. Og så er der nogen der bare synes det er sjovt at sparke en ældre hjemløs mand i asfalten.

Alfa-hannerne skaber bekymring og stress

Det er svært for Politiken, der i lørdagens udgave af Debat sektionen leger med tanken om Trump som Hitler, i form af Chaplins Anton Hynkel.

img_00121

Og hans stab klar til krig

img_00211

Politiken har næsten ret. Alfahannerne er kommet igen. Breitbarts sikkerhedsredaktør Sebastian Gorka om Trumps udnævnelse af flere generaler i sin kommende regering

“I’d like to recognize the fact that after eight years of Pajama Boys, it’s time for the alpha males to come back,” he added. “How appropriate that we’ve got three Marines from the same division, legendary figures in uniform, to represent three of the key posts in the new administration! The fact is, having met Donald Trump a long time ago, and talking about national security issues, one of the first things that was clear to me from this businessman, this very special businessman, is that he understands we are at war, Raheem. He gets it. And he wants to win that war. He knows he’s not going to do it with limp-wristed Pajama Boys. Who better than a bunch of legendary Devil Dogs to do it? So yeah, it’s baloney, and it’s very cool in my opinion.”

Kassam turned to a discussion posted at The Gorka Briefing, in which Dr. Gorka argued that “Europe is collapsing.”

“I think it’s patently obvious that the Trump Train was the result, in part, a reflection of, the general rejection of centralized federative bureaucracy, and as a result, we have Brexit foreshadow the future of what used to be called Project Europe,” Gorka elucidated. “And the fact is, people are waking up. They’re rejecting faceless bureaucracy. We see it all across the continent. Brexit isn’t a uniquely British phenomena. As a result, we will see more and more people say, ‘Enough is enough. We want national sovereignty. We want national security most important of all.’ And as a result, I think Project Europe is on the ropes.”

Den mest markante alfahan er tidligere general i det amerikanske marinekorps James Matthis, en mand der selvfølgeligt erkender, at “there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot”. National Reviews Tom Rogan kalder Matthis “at once a scholar and a warrior” og begynder sin beskrivelse med citatet “I don’t have worry and stress. I cause worry and stress!”, bl.a fordi sin “…annihilation upon al-Qaeda in Iraq”

Iran has particular reason for concern. Commanding CENTCOM, Mattis pushed for tough realism in constraining the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary expansionism. He recognizes that Iran’s leaders are rational actors, but he also knows that their revolutionary impulses must be checked. For this, he earned the ire of President Obama, who was so intent on kowtowing to the Iranian regime. But now he is set to take over the Pentagon, and Khamenei and the Qassem-crew have much to fear.

First, Mattis is likely to push Trump to focus on fixing the Iran nuclear deal. This will likely entail reducing Iranian cheating on inspections protocols and Iranian ballistic-missile research. If Trump and Mattis work with U.S. allies (notably the French) who are concerned about President Obama’s failure to enforce the deal, Iran could face rougher waters next year. Mattis has suggested blockading the country if the regime tries to play hard ball. It’s a good idea.

Second, a Mattis Pentagon will likely take tougher action against Iranian aggression in the Middle East. As I’ve noted, President Obama has largely ignored Iranian malevolence in states such as Lebanon and Iraq. That needs to be remedied, and quickly.

Third, Mattis will deter Iranian terrorism against America. That imperative is real. In 2011, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards — as Mattis himself explains — tried to murder the then-Saudi ambassador to the United States. The plan involved blowing up a Washington D.C. restaurant and everyone in it. He’s the incarnation of the First Marine Division motto, ‘No better friend, no worse enemy.’

Fourth, Mattis’s realism will be useful in helping the U.S. to confront Sunni extremism more effectively. As I’ve explained before, thanks to his supplication to Iran, President Obama has alienated America’s Sunni-Arab allies. Mattis, who is adored by the Sunni-Arab monarchies for his honest courage, offers the Trump administration a chance to renew those bonds. That means new potential for a Sunni-Arab crackdown on Sunni fundraising for groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. It also means we might see more special forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

“Who knows? American red lines might even make a comeback.” slutter Rogan.

Breitbart har samlet 15 Matthis citater, hvor mange er skønne. Jeg vil dog trække et andet citat frem, hvor kampen mod islam og anden fjendskab, ikke blot skal overlades til alfahannerne

I think it’s very clear that this enemy has decided that the war, the real war for them, will be fought in the narrative, in the media. This is not a place where we’re going to take the enemy’s capital and run up our flag and drink their coffee and that sort of thing.

Politiken er Hitler-forskrækket over generaler i regeringen Trump, fordi Alfahanner ikke hører til i fredstid - men det er Politiken ikke hører efter, hvad der foregår uden for deres bombesluse. Vi er ikke i en fredstid.

Det er min overbevisning, at demokratier ikke kan kæmpe for sin frihed uden konsensus om en nødvendighed og hvem der er fjenden. Vietnamkrigen blev tabt i de amerikanske hjerter og  ikke på slagmarken. Vi danskere, der anerkender vores nationalisme, Danmark først kunne man kalde det, kan ikke nedkæmpe truslen fra islam, uden et konsensus bag os.

Og det betyder at vi er forpligtet til at nedbryde det narrativ, den fortælling, der dominerer medierne. Sammen med venstrefløjen og bureakraterne enabler de islams angreb på vores frihed og kultur ved at fortrænge realiteterne for det stor tavse flertal. Det er en kamp for definitionsretten og den frie debat, som alle os betahanner og -hunner, kan tage på alle niveauer.

Og fordi vi i den kamp har brug for friheden til at ytre os, reagerer bureaukraterne og venstrefløjen og medierne med allehånde forsøg på at sikre kontrol med ytringer og nyheder. Racismeparagraffer ikke blot opretholdes, men søges udvidet til forbud mod hadtale, hadprædikanter bliver løst defineret som både de der spreder had som de der advarer og nægtet indrejse, sociale medier indskrænker rammerne og venstrefløjen og dens medier opfinder nye begreber, som post-faktualitet til fake news for at retfærdiggøre et offentligt meningsmonopol.

Vi kan skal alle sammen kæmpe for den frihed, der er blevet os skænket. Og der er lyspunkter i den kamp, fra store sejre som Brexit og Trump til små sprækker i mediernes selvfølgelige forståelse af ofre og skurke i det store og modige arbejde For Frihed bedriver. Og vi vil vinde - yyyuge!

Det vi alle mener

Begrebet post-faktualitet er venstrefløjens seneste offensiv mod dissens i offentligheden. Beskyldningerne mod alle nye og højredrejede medier for at sprede fake-news hviler på en antagelse om de etablerede medier ikke gør det samme. På Liveleak, Youtube og de sociale medier kunne vi alle konstatere det postfaktuelle i mediernes mange historier og kolporteringer om hvorledes der var tale om hele familier, udledsagede flygtningerbørn og/eller højt specialiseret arbejdskraft, især som læger og ingenører. Det var surrealistisk.

Vi burde ellers være godt vant når indvandring, åbne grænser og multikulturalitet stadigt beskrives som et gode og en økonomisk bæredygtig fremtid når virkeligheden er stik modsat. Vi kan se at de multietniske samfund ofte kollapser i borgerkrig og hvor umuligt det er at smide en herboende vaneforbryder hjem til den møgbunke han rejstre fra fordi de sekteriske forhold i snart sagt hele resten af verden gør at alle er forfulgt af alle.

Det er helt naturligt for medierne i samklang med venstrefløjen at kaste sig over det lille medie Den Korte Avis. Da en vært på en af Danmarks Radios ungdomskanaler opfordrede til boykot, rammede DR’s nyhedschef Naja Nielsen ganske rigtigt hovedproblemet ind, da hun i NEWS-magasinet Presselogen sagde “at hele indslaget er problematisk, for det har tonen af, at det er noget, som vi alle sammen mener.” Den pointe kan man roligt strække ud til en generel beskrivelse af medierne i Danmark og tærske langhalm på til køerne kommer ind med de nye kartofler.

At være direkte imod venstrefløjens dagsorden er så odiøst blandt medierne at man problematiserer at DKA er holdningsjournalistik, skønt Dagbladet Arbejderen får tifold i medistøtte og Modkraft det dobbelte. Det må man til Uriasposten for at få at vide og den får nada i støttekroner. Kim Møller skriver videre og rigtigt om reaktionerne på Dansk Folkepartis Kenneth Kristensen Berths nøgterne betragtninger om grænsekontrol

Alt imens statsstøttede dagblade fører kampagne mod uafhængige højrefløjsmedier, kører de nyhedshistorier der burde være omfattet af ‘fake news’-begrebet.

Mediestormen mod Kenneth Kristensen Berth er et godt eksempel, og det er værd at gengive professor Emeritus Uffe Østergaards ord, som de faldt i gårsdagens Reporterne på Radio24syv.

Jeg er bange for at han er kommet til at begå den for en politiker, så ubehagelige ting, at sige sandheden. … det er ikke rart at høre på, men grænser kræver altså faktisk en magtanvendelse.

… det er ubehageligt, men det er altså det man logisk set siger, når man siger man vil have grænser og grænsebevogtninger.

Det ligger i vores almindelige offentlighed. Vi kan ikke lide at høre sandheden.”

Information havde en hel kavalkade af sandheder fra Dansk Folkeparti, som de rubricerede som kontroversielle. Som Morten Messerschmidt, der har sagt at “muslimer, der bekender sig til den islamiske ideologi, er tabere eller bliver tabere. De ønsker jo ikke en samfundsmodel, som kan skabe tålelige forhold for mennesker“. Kontroversielt for medierne fordi beviserne på det modsatte bare er så overvældende. Af samme grund bliver Krarups sammenstilling af hagekors og islamisk hovedbeklædning skræmmende, som medierne også skræmmes over Pia Kjæsgaards Kemal Atatürk citat “Der er kun én civilisation, og det er vores” og Martin Henriksens logiske påpegning af “at skilte på arabisk signalerer (..), at hvis man ikke gider lære dansk, så indretter Danmark sig efter dem – og ikke omvendt“.

Og Danmarks Radio syntes også Geert Wilders er vildt kontroversiel for at udtale at koranen er fascistisk, at man burde lade “hovedtørklæderne blafre i parken“, at “Der er absolut en sammenhæng mellem islam og kriminalitet” og at der er en kamp igang mellem os og muslimerne. På TV2 kan man endda gøre julehilsen til noget kontroversielt, hvis det falder ud af Trumps mund: “Trump med kontroversiel erklæring: - Nu må I sige ‘glædelig jul’ igen” Gys! Og Trump kan virkeligt godt lide julen.  Alt er kontroversielt når det kommer fra folk, der ikke er venstredrejede. Fordi “det er noget, som vi alle sammen mener”

Det er en af venstrefløjens metoder til at styre debatten og venstrefløjen synes at der er for meget fokus på islam. Men medierne fokuserer faktisk ikke så meget på islam, som islam bringer sig selv i fokus og i dag har islam haft en travl dag. I Tyrkiet har kurderne myrdet 38, deraf 30 betjente, i et kombineret angreb med en bilbombe og en selvmordsbomber. I Aden/Yemen har Islamisk Stat dræbt 48 soldater i et selvmordsangreb, da soldaterne skulle have løn udbetalt. I Egypten har terrorister (IS eller aQ) dræbt 25 i et angreb på en kirke…. og så har Islamisk Stat også lige erobret den syriske by Palmyra ved et overraskelsesangreb, og har i den forbindelse erobret bl.a. 30 af Assads kampvogne.

Uansvarlighed skal stoppe det nationale ræs mod bunden

Information har talt med  leder af University of Michigans Refugee and Asylum Law Program James C. Hathaway om hans bud på en model for en global omfordelingsmekanisme

Vi bør have et system for ’styret flygtningebeskyttelse’, hvor flygtninge bliver retfærdigt fordelt mellem lande, hvor der derfor ikke er incitament til at lukke grænser og behandle flygtninge dårligt for at skræmme dem væk,« forklarer han til Information.

Måden, professoren vil sikre sig det, er ved, at en flygtning – som for eksempel syriske ’Ahmed’ på illustrationen ovenfor – modsat i dag ikke nødvendigvis skal have permanent ophold i det land, hvor han ankommer og får asyl. Her søger han nemlig ikke asyl hos de statslige myndigheder, men hos en udvidet version af FN’s Flygtningeagentur, UNHCR.

Og opnår han flygtningestatus, vil han på sigt muligvis blive omfordelt og genhuset i et andet land. Det vil blandt andet forhindre, at modtagerlandene lukker grænser og presser flygtninge ud på farefulde ruter.

Så lad os hilse på syriske Ahmed, hvis situation altså illustreres i en tegneserie, som man virkeligt skal se for at tro den

flygtningetegneserie

Som man kan se bliver Ahmeds hus bombet og uden et hjem, må han flygte til grønnere egne. Hans forstående kernefamilie, en kvinde, en lille dreng og et spædbarn, vinker farvel til Ahmed. Ahmed ser tilbage på det hjem, hvor det nu synes umuligt for ham at leve - og vinker til sin familie, hans kone, hans lille søn og den lille ny. Der er ingen grund til at sidde lårene af hinanden, når hjemmet er udbombet, så afsted bliver der travet, en lysere fremtid lokker

»Hvis der ikke var nogen indvandringskonsekvenser for den stat, som flygtningen rejser mod – hvis det bare var et sted, hvor flygtningen kunne få adgang til et internationalt system – så ville staten ikke have nogen interesse i at forhindre hendes ankomst,« som James C. Hathaway formulerede det i et oplæg til et forum for EU’s agentur for fundamentale rettigheder i juni.

(…)

Ligesom Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen støtter også adjunkt ved Global Refugee Studies på Aalborg Universitet Martin Lemberg-Pedersen en omfordelingsmodel a la Hathaways.

»Kvoteordninger og internationale organer, der kan sætte sig ud over det nationale ræs mod bunden, er vejen frem. Jeg mener ikke selve modellen er urealistisk, der mangler bare politisk vilje,« siger han.

Hvis den enkelte stat ikke mærker konsekvenserne… De idealistiske herrer er altså helt med på at der er tale om konsekvenser for modtagerstaterne ved migration. Så det gælder om at lave et system, hvor alle opfører sig uansvarligt, fordi skønt man kommer til at mærke konsekvenser, så vil man ikke mærke konsekvenserne af sine EGNE handlinger. Et system af gensidig uansvarlighed uden ende.

Ahmed mærker heller ikke konsekvenserne af at flygte fra sin familie. Han flygter videre til Jordan, og “Det skal understreges, at flygtninges illegale grænsekrydsninger og ophold ikke må straffes. Det vil bl.a. ødelægge markedet for menneskesmuglere”. Modtagerlandende vil bl.a. blive ødelagt. I Jordan møder Ahmed så en repræsentant fra en udviddet version af FNs flygtningeagentur, hvorfra han modtager penge og vejledning i uddannelse og integration.

Ahmed skal blive i Jordan i 6 år. Hvis ikke Ahmed er vendt tilbage til sin familie, der nok efterhånden skulle være færdige med at bygge huset op igen, vil FNs flygtningeagentur genhuseham i et nyt modtagerland, afgjort af det internationale kvotesystem ud fra en fordelingsnøgle med parametre, som BNP/indb., befolkningens størrelse og Ahmeds oprindelsesregion.

Det ender lykkeligt for Ahmed, der med kufferten fuld af, hvad ved jeg, modtages med jubel fra venligboerne - eller er det den første bølge, der fejrer forstærkninger? Og familien? Hans kone, hans søn, som nok er i puberteten og det lille spædbarn, der nu venter på sin syvårs fødselsdag? Det skal man nok ikke bekymre sig om, Ahmed er stadig i den våbenføre alder og kan stifte en ny.

ahmed-med-sin-kuffert

Trumps sammenhængende tale

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

Angreb gavner højrefløjen

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

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

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

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

forkert-gc3a6t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jo Cox og venstrefløjens “selektive medfølelse”

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

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

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

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

Except, perhaps, with one striking omission.

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

Og Dieu-Le-Veut tilføjer

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

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

Stemmer englænderne sig ud til friheden?

Briterne ser for alvor ud til at forlade EU, skriver Zero Hedge

The headlines go from bad to worse for the UK and EU establishment as yet another new poll this weekend, by Opinium, shows “Brexit” leading by a remarkable 19 points (52% chose to leave the EU against 33% choosing to keep the status quo). This result comes after 2 polls Friday night showing a 10-point lead for “leave” which sparked anxiety across markets. This surge in “leave” probability comes despite an additional 1.5 million voters having registered this week (which many expected to increase “remain” support). Further anger towards EU was exposed when former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith warned that seven new prisons will need to be built in the UK by 2030 to cope with the rising number of migrant criminals (presumedly due to ’staying’ in the EU). With market anxiety rising, as One River’s CIO notes, if Brexit happens, gold will soar.

Apropos EUs opløsning er der et stort folkeligt pres på at forlade EU i både Holland og Frankrig og det er et mønster, der spreder sig i hele Unionen, skriver Søren Kern for Gatestone Institute

Public opposition to the European Union is growing in all key member states, according to a new survey of voters in ten EU countries.

Public disaffection with the EU is being fueled by the bloc’s mishandling of the refugee and debt crises, according to the survey, which interviewed voters in Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden.

Public anger is also being fueled by the growing number of diktats issued by the unelected officials running the Brussels-based European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the bloc, which has been relentless in its usurpation of sovereignty from the 28 nation states that comprise the European Union.

The 17-page report, “Euroskepticism Beyond Brexit,” was published by the Pew Research Center on June 7, just two weeks before the June 23 referendum on whether Britain will become the first country to leave the European Union (Brexit blends the words Britain and exit).

(…)

Although the survey does not explicitly say so, the findings almost certainly reflect growing anger at the anti-democratic nature of the EU and its never-ending power grabs.

On May 31, the European Union, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft,unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. Critics say the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe because the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

On May 24, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, vowedto use sanctions to isolate far-right or populist governments that are swept into office on the wave of popular anger against migration. Under powers granted to the European Commission in 2014, Juncker can trigger a “rule of law alert” for countries that depart from “the common constitutional traditions of all member states.” Rather than accepting the will of the people at the voting booth, Juncker can impose sanctions to address “systemic deficiencies” in EU member states.

On May 4, Juncker warned that EU countries that failed to “show solidarity” by refusing take in migrants would face a fine of €250,000 ($285,000) per migrant.

On April 20, the European Political Strategy Centre, an in-house EU think tank that reports directly to Juncker, proposed that the European Union establish its own central intelligence agency, which would answer only to unelected bureaucrats. According to the plan, the 28 EU member states would have a “legally binding duty to share information.”

(…)

In a recent interview with Le Monde, Juncker said that if Britons voted to leave the EU, they would be treated as “deserters”:

“I am sure the deserters will not be welcomed with open arms. If the British should say ‘No’ — which I hope they do not — then life in the EU will not go on as before. The United Kingdom will be regarded as a third country and will have its fur stroked the wrong way (caresser dans le sens du poil). If the British leave Europe, people will have to face the consequences. It is not a threat but our relations will no longer be what they are today.”

In an interview with the Telegraph, Giles Merritt, director of the Friends of Europe think tank in Brussels, summed it up this way:

“The EU policy elites are in panic. If the British vote to leave the shock will be so ghastly that they will finally wake up and realize that they can no longer ignore demands for democratic reform. They may have to dissolve the EU as it is and try to reinvent it, both in order to bring the Brits back and because they fear that the whole political order will be swept away unless they do.”

Men nogle danser videre. Helle Thorning Schmidt mener, med de mange Kinnock-millioner i banken, at Europa sagtens kan tage en million flygtninge fra syrien fordi “disse mennesker flygter fra den mest forfærdelige krig, vi nogensinde har set i vores baggård“. Selv om det var sandt (Ifølge Syrian Observatory for Human Rights er halvdelen af de dræbte mig bekendt Assad-tro kombattanter. Der er også Saddams gasning af kurderne i 1988 er huske på. GIAs kampagne af halshugninger og lemlæstelser af hele landsbyer op gennem 90erne. Åh ja, kolonikrigen i Algeriet i 50erne og den græske borgerkrig i slutningen af 40erne) så har vi intet at gøre med med den baggård. Den må passe sig selv og sine udlevede grusomheder. Imens vil vi andre ud af EU og dens korrupte elites fordeling af importerede elendigheder.

Pressen vælger gode historier fra

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

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

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

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

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

terrorist-i-tv

terrorist-fra-tv-med-afhugget-hoved

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

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

En verden af Fritzler

Slaveri og voldtægt er en del af islams krig mod sine omgivelser. På Memri kan man se en kvindelig muslimsk teolog fra Al-Azhar universitetet forklare den rette lære

In a September 12, 2014 Fatwa show, Al-Azhar Professor of Theology Suad Saleh discussed the Islamic concept of “those whom you own.” Speaking on Hayat TV, Professor Saleh said that Muslims who capture women in a legitimate war against their enemies may own them and have sex with them as slavegirls. “In order to humiliate them,” Prof. Saleh said, “they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.” The video has been circulating in social media in recent days.

Suad Saleh: “‘Those whom you own’ (slavery) existed before Islam. It existed among all nations and countries, not just among pre-Islam Arabs. Anyone could trade in freeborn men and women. This is called the selling of freeborn people. It’s like the selling of human organs and trafficking in freeborn humans today. But when Islam emerged, it put (slavery) into order, by limiting it to legitimate wars between Muslims and their enemies. If we fought Israel, which is plundering land, and is an aggressor against people and their faith… Obviously, it is impossible that we will fight Israel, even though Surat Al-Isra in the Quran foretells this, and nothing is beyond the power of Allah… The female prisoners of wars are ‘those whom you own.’ In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

[...]

“Some opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: ‘I will bring a woman from East Asia, as (a slavegirl) under the status of “those whom you own,” and with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slavegirl.’ This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slavegirl. Legitimately-owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war, which is waged against the Muslims, a war to plunder land, a war against our faith, and so on. What some people are doing now is an aggression against Allah and against Allah’s legal texts in the Quran, and we must not be influenced by this at all.”

Og der er også et par vers

Quran (33:50) - “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Daily Mail har nogle grufulde beretninger fra kvinder og piger der har overlevet Islamisk Stats sex-slavehandel. Tæsk, voldtægt, tortur, udsultning, mord, tvangskonverteringer var dagligdag i deres islamiske helvede. Blandt køberne er det især saudiarabiske ikke blot mænd, men hele familier. Men der er også købere fra Albanien, Syrien og USA, alle muslimer. Som en af de stakkels piger beskriver sin fangevogters hjem “The television was always on religious channels, reciting the Quran all the time.

We were in Tal Afar for two months then they brought us to Raqqa in Syria. There were about three hundred of us girls there, in a big hall. All the women had babies who cried because they were so hungry. The children were only given one egg a day.

The first night nine girls tried to flee. They tied their clothes together to make a rope and lowered themselves out of the window, but the ISIS fighters found them and brought them back. They hit all of us because we didn’t tell them about their escape.

They put us all in a big room, locked the door and didn’t give us any water. Then one day they brought us to another building. On the front was written something like ‘area for selling’ and there I was sold to a forty year-old man from Saudi Arabia.

He asked me to marry him and when I refused he pointed to three objects sitting on his table; a knife, a gun, and rope. He said he’d use all three if I didn’t say yes. I refused over and over again, so he beat me. He beat my niece, who is only 3 years-old.

I was sold again, this time to a single man who wanted to marry me. I refused with all my might and again was beaten, and again they beat my little niece. He tried to rape me and when he couldn’t he sold me again.

In the new house I did all the work: cleaning, cooking and washing. The man who bought me said that he had to sleep with me to make me a real Muslim. I told him that if he slept with me I would become his wife and then I would not be a slave any more. His wife threatened to leave if he slept with me.

She got very angry at my niece because she couldn’t speak Arabic: she put pepper in her mouth and locked her in a room without water; she beat her so much you can still see the wounds today.

They wouldn’t let me change her diapers for a week. We were only allowed to eat small portions of food because after all we were slaves and we shouldn’t expect to have much food.

muslimer-tager-slaver

They came to us and said that they would leave us alone. Then they came and told us we had to convert to Islam otherwise they would behead us. They gave us time to think and then they came back again saying that they would let us go, but instead they brought us to a school, took our money and our possessions. They separated the men from the women and left us inside. Then we heard the shooting. We thought they were killing animals not our men.

In Mosul sheiks and emirs came and looked at us. They were buying us. I was sold to a man who took me to Tal Afar. When we arrived I was forced into marriage. That night he tied my hands and legs and he blindfolded me. Then he raped me.

(…)

My whole family was taken at night except for one of my brothers. They brought us to a school and took our phones, money, gold; everything. They put the women and children on a bus and we were taken to Mosul at night, to be sold. I was sold to a man who came from Albania. He lived together with five other families and I became the group’s slave.

(…)

In Mosul we were inside a two-storey building, five hundred of us. A sheik came. He had a stick in one hand and a book in the other. He had come to convert us to Islam. We said the words he asked us to say and according to the man we were now Muslim and had to go with them. One morning at five they picked us up, forced us to put on black abayas, chained our hands, blindfolded us and forced us on to a bus.

Som Amal fortæller: “The saddest thing I remember, during those terrible months, was this little girl, 12 years old. They raped her without mercy.” Det er islam hele vejen. Hele familier tager slaver, som det naturligste i verden, fra hele verden kommer der muslimer for at være med i grusomhederne, lokket af grusomhederne selv (en pointe eksperterne helt overser), som Islamisk Stat stolt lægger på nettet i HD. Den islamiske verden er et samfund af Fritzler.

Feminismen slår igen

Jeg savner stadig at læse noget på Arbejderen og Modkraft, to fyrtårne når det drejer som multikulturelle udfordringer og feminisme, om nytårskrænkelserne. Men nogle feminister forsøger på Facebook og i aviserne at definere fortællingen. For det er hvad det drejer sig om, definitionsretten til historien. Men med tusind krænkermuslimer ud af tusind, tusind der ikke er med i samme sekt, tusind der ikke kommer fra samme region, ej heller samme land og ej heller samme kontinent, der alle opfører sig lige voldeligt overfor kvinder, er det op ad bakke.

Et eksempel. Lotte Lund linker, “Apropos debatten om mænds vold og overgreb på kvinder - på tværs af kulturer”, til en artikel om voldtægter/krænkelser på Roskildefestivallen, der tilsyneladende er sexkrænkernes paradis. En mandlig skribent fortæller indledningsvis om en klam oplevelse

En tilfældig fyr, der under en koncert jeg havde set virkeligt meget frem til, blev ved med at stå og røre ved mig. Først sagde jeg høfligt: ”Please stop touching me,”, men eskalerede hurtigt til at råbe: ”Dude stop fucking touching me!”

Klammoen ragede på alle køn, får vi fortalt, så vi kan ikke, ligesom den gode skribent, konkludere at han var bøsse. Sikke en lettelse. Eller rettere kun bøsse.  Alene det at historien blev fortalt sikrede en sådan konklusion. Vi ved heller ikke om klammoen var hvid, thi det fortælles ikke, men vi kan vel udelukke, ud fra det engelske, at der er tale om en dansker. Skribenten bakker derpå sin oplevelse op med andenhåndsberetninger

Jeg kender ingen kvinder, der ikke kan fortælle en historie om at få en fed koncert ødelagt af en fyr, der ikke ville holde fingrene for sig selv. Ingen, der ikke kan fortælle om at blive raget uopfordret på af vildt fremmede mænd.

Ikke nok med det, så har han også statistik, der virker som en ekstrapolering af hans anekdoter

Problemet er massivt, for omkring 60.000 kvinder krænkes i løbet af festivalen – mange af dem gentagne gange.

Det er forbløffende at kvinder overhovedet kommer på Roskildefestivallen, år de næsten alle uden undtagelse er udsat for krænkelser. Især når der er eksempler på ”Roskildemedarbejder, der går på ”røvtogt” for at krænke så mange kvinder han kan under en koncert”. Men, fortæller han, ”Det er en accepteret kultur på Roskilde”, ”på Roskilde er det normen, at man krænker andre”.

Nu skal man ikke være polemisk og debattere om en accepteret kultur og norm, som folk vender begejstrede tilbage til, år efter år efter år, kan være krænkende. Jeg er voksen og har en hjerne og god smag, så jeg kommer aldrig på Roskilde. Men vi kan sige at når han skriver at han ikke kender en kvinder der ikke får en ”fed koncert ødelagt af en fyr”, så er der tale om en-tal. Hvor mange kvinder kan den røvtogtende Roskildemedarbejder nå at krænke?

For det er ikke for at hænge mig i petitesser, men der er bare forskel på en håndfuld klammoer, mindst nogen af dem udenlandske, blandt 130.000 musikplebejere, og så en hel hob, der unisont, ikke blot er på røvtogt, men fortsætter til fuldbyrdet voldtægt og røveri (op mod 379 kvinder blev krænket i Køln alene, lader det til).

Tillykke til humanisterne, I vandt!

Debat gjorde ingen klogere på virkeligheden for flertallet så den gennem selvbilledets prisme. Det selvbillede, der på en gang gjorde at man kunne være antinational og skamme sig over sit land, hævde moralsk overhøjhed på at relativere moral og pålægge sine naboer egen uansvarlighed.

Herunder beretter et vidne til den muslimske masse sex-overgrab på almindelige tyske kvinder i Køln, Nytårsnat

An eyewitness account by Ivan Jurcevic, a hotel club bouncer, what happened on 31th of december 2015 right in front of the cologne cathedral (Kölner Dom). Mass media coverage started only after countless woman and girls posted how they were chased by an immigrant mob and sexually assaulted, on a offficial page of cologne over at facebook.

Politiken kan man læse et offers historie

Så snart hun stod af toget på hovedbanegården i Køln, bemærkede ‘Steffi’, at noget var helt usædvanligt. Helt usædvanligt galt.

Ganske vist var det nytårsaften og stemningen løftet, men den 31-årige socialarbejder havde aldrig set så mange grædende kvinder med revet tøj eller uorden i festklæderne.

»Jamen, er de virkelig allesammen så fulde«, tænkte hun ved sig selv.

Kampklædt politi

Lige indtil hun mødte kampklædt politi på trappen og gik ud på pladsen foran banegården for at bane sig vej gennem mængden af det, hun troede var festende bysbørn, for at komme hjem til sin lejlighed.

Ude på den plads mellem hovedbanegården og den kendte domkirke, hvor kølnerne plejer at sætte hinanden i stævne for ved midnatstid at hilse det nye år velkommen i fællesskab, herskede en ond stemning.

LÆS OGSÅ Masseoverfald på tyske kvinder nytårsnat

Den unge kvinde fortæller under et ændret navn af frygt for repressalier til avisen Süddeutsche Zeitung om sine oplevelser af den voldsomme nytårsnat i Køln, hvor foreløbig 90 kvinder har anmeldt overfald, seksuelt betonede gramserier, tyverier og et enkelt tilfælde af voldtægt til politiet.

Der er også ‘Michelle’s historie. Der er mange historier fra den aften. Også fra Hamborg, Stutgart, Dusseldorf, Berling, Kalmar og Østrig. Men hvorfor dog dette pludselige fænomen? I Jyllands-Postens ellers udmærkede leder kan man læse forsigtige og og svigtende udtryk som “andre adfærdsnormer” og “frustrerede unge mænd” (man kan dog også læse “ofte voldsforherligende kulturer”). Det er næsten social kutyme at tale om frustrationer når de kriminelle er indvandrere. Det giver den omtalende et skær af udvidet empati og intellektuel balast. Dels gør det gerningsmand til et offer, dels åbner det for at samfundet, altså i dette tilfælde os, har noget af skylden. Et udtryk, hvorved man kan udvide problemstillingen til at dreje sig om meget mere og alt andet. Men det er et falsk forsøg der kun tjener at give indtryk af en forklaring, fordi ingen kan forklare, hvilke frustrationer der dog fører til at tusind mænd pludseligt kaster sig i grupper over alle tilstedeværende kvinder. Men det kan Daniel Greenfield til gengæld.

Greenfield forklarer i et glimrende indlæg, der burde være obligatorisk læsning for alle politikere, meningsdannere og journalister, hvorledes islam er en religion, hvis eneste bærende princip er religionsstifterens skiftende begær.

As a prophet he frequently made and broke his own laws, and then made new ones. Four witnesses are required for an act of sexual immorality, because at one point three witnesses accused Mohammed’s own wife of such an act. Prior to that Mohammed had taken action based only on a single witness.

Mohammed modified the law to allow him to marry his son’s wife and to shift the turns of his own wives. After Mohammed had received another urgent ‘revelation’ allowing him to do as he sexually pleased, his wife Aisha said, “O Allah’s Apostle I do not see but that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.” There you find the whole of Islamic jurisprudence. It was a code that existed only to please Mohammed’s sexual impulses.

If Allah existed only to enable women to sexually service Mohammed– what agency can women have in Islam?

Så da Muhammed så sig varm på et sådant 9 årigt et af slagsen, var pædofili hermed kodificeret moral. Men det er en anden historie. ”Muslim rape culture springs from that same code”, siger Greenfield og beskriver, hvorledes det fungerer i virkeligheden, hvad meningen er med tildækningen af kvinden og hvilken effekt denne tildækning får. Og mest vigtigt for os, hvilke frustrationer vestlige piger og kvinder bliver ofre for.

In the West rape is a crime because it an assault on a human being. In Islam, it is only a crime because it is a sex act that takes place outside of marriage.

(…)

In Islam, women are objects, not subjects. Physically their entire bodies are considered ‘Awrah’,an Arabic word meaning ‘nakedness’, ‘fault’ or ‘defect’, terms that amply sum up the Islamic view of women. Even their voices are considered ‘Awrah’ meaning that even a fully covered up woman speaking is an immoral thing. A woman exists within Islam as an immoral object. And that gives Muslim men implicit permission to assault her, while holding her very nature accountable for  tempting them to commit the act.

Islam does not consider rape to be a crime against a woman. It is a crime against their fathers and husbands. There is no crime involved in a husband raping his own wife.

(…)

In a tribal society, rape is a crime against property and honor. To a father, his daughter’s virginity is a valuable item that increases her market value. Marrying her off is way to build a relationship between two families. To a husband, his wife’s chastity maintains the value of his property and insures that the offspring is his. To assault a woman is to commit a crime against the communal property of a family. But a woman herself has no rights over her body that any man is bound to respect. As Lara Logan discovered in Tahrir Square.

An unaccompanied woman is ownerless.

(…)

The Burka placed responsibility on women to defeminize themselves and mark themselves as property. Centuries of Islamic jurisprudence put the burden of responsibility for any assault on a woman as the object that tempts men to sin. The circular reasoning of Islam says that if a man assaults a woman, it is because she tempted him. That femininity is inherently an object of temptation. The Burka and the Hijab began as a way of defeminizing women for their protection, but then became an indictment of women. Women were no longer being defeminized to protect them, but to protect men from them.

(…)

Like all social rules, they don’t apply equally. The daughter of a wealthy and westernized urban family will enjoy an immunity from them, that the daughter of a poor family in a village will not. The wealthy daughter will attend the London School of Economics, use Twitter and serve as an example that her country and Islam are really very liberated. The poor daughter will be a second wife to some bored fat merchant and be considered lucky if he doesn’t beat her to death when she loses her looks.

Meanwhile the young men will roam the streets bored and frustrated.

Oversexed and underfucked kalder man det vist. Der står en million migranter i Tyskland og flere er på vej. De er inviteret af de, der i sidste ende vandt den politiske dagsorden stik mod debattens substans. Prisen deles af os alle. Prisen er ikke blot økonomisk fallit. Prisen er vores levevis. Alt betale ved kasse et. Og hvis ikke man vil betale står den på krig.

Shia mod sunni

Saudi-arabien har til Irans store fortrydelse henrettet en shiamuslimsk imam. Diplomatiske forbindelser er sløjfet og truslerne om hævn hænger stadigt tykkere i luften. Sunni mod Shia med Saudiarabien og Iran hovedaktørerne i dette seneste kapitel i denne snart 1.400 år gamle islamiske krig ser ud til at blusse op igen. Charles Krauthammer koncentrerer sin analyse i National Review om Obamas udenrigspolitik

Commenting on Saudi Arabia executing an Iranian cleric, Krauthammer said, “I can’t say the Saudi execution of this Shiite cleric was very wise, but they did see it as in their national interest, and I think they are acting fairly desperately. Because they look around and their protector since the 1930s when King Saud met with FDR, and they essentially established this relationship — ‘you supply us oil, we protect you’ — is deeply in jeopardy.”

“They look at the way Obama has abandoned them,” Krauthammer continued. “The nuclear deal is just the culmination of the process. Abandoned them in Syria, abandoning the red line, has done nothing since the signing of the nuclear agreement.”

Krauthammer said the Saudis now worry about encirclement: “Iran has become increasingly aggressive in Syria. In Yemen, which is, remember, is right on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia – it’s not removed the way Syria is – and they see serious encirclement.”

Også i Wall Street Journal kan man læse om den amerikanske eftergivenhedspolitiks fallit

President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military aggression and greater anti-American hostility.

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran.

(…)

The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: The hard-liners run Iran.

Og for at tvære pointen helt ud “The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions”. “Change” var hvad folk ville have uden at vide hvad det rent faktisk indebar og så fik de forandring. En forandring til det værre fordi flertallet ikke kunne tænke.

Det hele er nu ikke Obamas skyld. Islam er en rådden verden og et kollaps eller endnu en krig er uundgåeligt uanset vestlig naivitet. Spengler tegner i Asia Times et dystert billede for Saudiarabien, som lider under faldende olipriser (hvilket Obama med sin anti-fracking politik ikke har hverken lod eller del i)

Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years, according to an October estimate by the International Monetary Fund (as I discussed here). The House of Saud relies on subsidies to buy the loyalty of the vast majority of its subjects, and its reduced spending power is the biggest threat to its rule. Last week Riyadh cut subsidies for water, electricity and gasoline. The timing of the executions may be more than coincidence: the royal family’s capacity to buy popular support is eroding just as its regional security policy has fallen apart.

For decades, Riyadh has presented itself as an ally of the West and a force for stability in the region, while providing financial support for Wahhabi fundamentalism around the world. China has been the kingdom’s largest customer as well as a provider of sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles. But China also has lost patience with the monarchy’s support for Wahhabi Islamists in China and bordering countries.

According to a senior Chinese analyst, the Saudis are the main source of funding for Islamist madrassas in Western China, where the “East Turkistan Independence Movement” has launched several large-scale terror attacks. Although the Saudi government has reassured Beijing that it does not support the homegrown terrorists, it either can’t or won’t stop some members of the royal family from channeling funds to the local jihadis through informal financial channels. “Our biggest worry in the Middle East isn’t oil—it’s Saudi Arabia,” the analyst said.

China’s Muslims—mainly Uyghurs in Western China who speak a Turkish dialect—are Sunni rather than Shia.  Like Russia, China does not have to worry about Iranian agitation among Shia jihadis, and tends to prefer Iran to the Sunni powers. As a matter of form, Beijing wants to appear even-handed in its dealings with Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example in recent contacts between their respective navies. Chinese analysts emphasize that Beijing has sold weapons to both—more in absolute to terms to Iran but more sophisticated weapons to the Saudis.

More pertinent than public diplomacy, though, is where China is buying its oil.

Nonetheless, China’s oil import data show a significant shift away from Saudi Arabia towards Russia and Oman (which China considers part of the Iranian sphere of influence). Russia’s oil exports to China have grown fourfold since 2010 while Saudi exports have stagnated. Given the world oil glut, China can pick and choose its suppliers, and it is hard to avoid the inference that Beijing is buying more from Russia for strategic reasons.  According to Russian sources, China also has allowed Russian oil companies to delay physical delivery of oil due under existing contracts, permitting Russia to sell the oil on the open market for cash—the equivalent of a cash loan to Russia.

Det er alt sammen meget spændende og man kunne jo nyde sine popcorn til øllerne, hvis ikke det var således at den vestlige naivitet havde importeret nisserne. Ifølge BBC er der stigende bekymring for at “the sectarian divides so bitterly apparent in much of the Middle East” mellem sunnimuslimer og shiamuslimer udvikler sig yderligere i England. En shiamuslim fortæller

“Even at Soas, a university I love, Sunnis and Shias have big arguments all the time,” says Anahita.

“And elsewhere in London, we have the same problem - Sunni and Shia arguing. You can clearly see it when you walk in Edgware Road or Kilburn.

“If you have a green bracelet or anything that shows you are Shia, they look at you as if you are not even Muslim, or you don’t exist. It’s very disrespectful, and very sad.

“Islamic societies in general and especially in London are getting bigger all the time. But not in a good way.”

En tilflyttet shiamuslim mærker nu hvordan muslimer behandler ikke muslimer - og så er det lige pludselig ikke godt at der bliver flere af de andre muslimer i London. Hvor flygter muslimerne næste gang hen, når de bliver mange nok?

Det politiske konsensus udstikker retning: Lad alt gå sin skæve gang

Mette Frederiksen vil have en plan, baseret på en bred politisk aftale, for “hvordan Danmark hjælper »en fair andel af de flygtninge, der er i verden nu« og sikrer, at mennesker, der kommer til Danmark, også kommer i arbejde”.

Jeg vil tage mig i agt for mennesker, der måtte mene, at de har alle løsningerne. Det har jeg ikke. Det har ingen. Det var der nogen, der påstod i valgkampen. Også her Lars Løkke Rasmussen: Velkommen til virkeligheden. Nu skal du tage dit ansvar på dig. Vis lederskab. Lad os lave en bred politisk aftale. Om asyl og udlændinge. Om reel og markant hjælp til nærområderne og verdens flygtninge

Ja, velkommen til virkeligheden sagde Mette Frederiksen, hvis regering som det første afskaffede grænsekontrollen, endda også til Thulesen Dahl. Og som fra talerstolen nu  ’langer’ “ud efter de omstridte flygtningeannoncer, som regeringen har indrykket i flere udenlandske aviser”. Med ‘fair andel’ mener Frederiksen et EU-kvotesystem, hvor Danmark skal tage imod en hvis del af de muslimske migranter, som Merkel inviterer til Tyskland til afstivning hendes tilsyneladende umættelige behov for

we-need-more-stuff-to-buy

"We need stuff to buy. Where is the UN" og andre bizarre budskaber

Apropos at tage imod, hvad andre inviterer, så er statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen enig med resten af den etablerede afmægtighed. Det er frit for enhver statsleder at invitere muslimske horder til sine nabolande, er det frit for enhver regering, ja alle og enhver at invitere hvem som helst indenfor på andres bekostning da vi alle er “almenmenneskeligt forpligtet”. “Nogle derude skal tage medejerskab”. Staten er derimod ikke forpligtet på at sikre nationens grænser, så det overlades til venligboerne, eller som han betegner ‘civilsamfundet’. Løkke vil holde et topmøde for “en række erhvervs-, lønmodtager- og nødhjælpsorganisationer samt flere virksomheder og uddannelsessektoren”, hvor han vil “teste den vilje”, som disse empater praler af.

Løkke indser at flygtningene vil “være her i en årrække og derfor er det afgørende, at de kommer i arbejde og bliver selvforsørgende”. Løkke er ifølge eget udsagn “et praktisk menneske”, der erkender den realpolitiske virkelighed; når man lukker folk ind i landet, kommer de aldrig ud igen. Det er mere end Thulesen Dahl ser ud til at forstå, når han tror man kan holde dem i lejrene. Derfor kan man lige så godt starte tidligt hvis fejlintegrationen skal have en chance og her er det for Løkke “desværre noget mere komplekst” fordi der ikke er tale om en “ekstremt højtuddannet arbejdskraftreserve” som medierne ellers foregiver. Faktisk er “beskæftigelsesgraden for de syriske flygtninge, der er kommet over de senere år, bare helt ufatteligt lav”. Åh, kun 21% af asylansøgerne i Europa i disse tider er fra Syrien, så måske er det ikke så galt igen - hvis altså ikke det er meget værre.

Det er det politiske konsensus i denne krisetid. Ude af stand til at tage ansvar, ude af stand til at erkende deres fejlslagne politik og projekt. Ude af stand til at handle. Det er hvad vi har sat lid til. Løkke Rasmussen har den fordel at han ikke er rød og derfor ser ‘at der er kommet mange flere til landet, end han med sine “valgløfter kunne have ønsket”. Men så meget desto mere forstemmende at han så alligevel ikke lukker grænsen, men fortsætter med at være tilhænger af det grænseløse EU.

De tykke tolderes Europa

Det er uundgåeligt, Schengen er død, grænser lukkes i hele Europa. Det vidste vi godt ville blive konsekvensen. Politikerne vidste det også. Alligevel tøver de, som skal ulykkernes omfang partout nå et vist niveau før de vil træffe den beslutning de ikke kan undslå sig. Jyllands-Posten skriver at EU stadig tøver med deres spidskompetence, fordeling og spredning af ulykker

Blot timer efter Tysklands genindførelse af grænsekontrollen på sine sydlige grænser, og især den østrigske, for at kontrollere tilstrømningen af flygtninge fra Ungarn, fulgte Østrig, Tjekkiet og Slovakiet i større eller mindre grad det tyske skridt. I Holland øgede myndighederne antallet af stikprøver. Polen og Frankrig meddelte sig parate til at følge det tyske skridt, hvis det var nødvendigt.

Tysklands indenrigsminister, Thomas de Maizière, har ikke lagt skjul på, at det er hele Schengen-samarbejdet, der er på spil. Og på vej ind til et hastemøde i Bruxelles om krisen gentog han, at »Tyskland ikke kan trække læsset alene.«

Men de historiske sus udenfor fulgte ikke med ind i den stillestående luft i mødelokalet, hvor EU’s 28 justits- og integrationsministre forsøgte at lægge ugers bitter ordstrid om flygtningekrisen bag sig og i stedet sætte en fælles kurs.

Da mødet var slut kort før kl. 22 bakkede de fleste op om at skulle fordele de 120.000 asylsøgere, men der blev ikke opnået fuld enighed. Dermed er en endelig aftale udskudt til i hvert fald 8. oktober.

Ungarn, Tjekkiet og Slovakiet kunne ikke bakke om de øvrige landes hensigter.

Og som grænserne går ned over hele Europa kan tyskerne godt glemme deres naboers store ord om at tage “deres del” af problemerne. Tyskland og Sverige er at betragte som katastrofe-områder, hvor donorlandene lover massiv støtte, der aldrig materialiserer sig. Åh, ja, Sverige mister nu også deres mulighed for at være transitland, da Finland også lukker deres grænse. Nok er nok og svenskerne må beholde deres økonomiske mirakel. Løkke mener ikke at Danmarks grænser skal kontrolleres og i grænselandet er man imod grænsekontrol. Men kun i grænselandet

Nu har Tyskland spærret grænsen mod Østrig, og det giver mening. Men hvad skulle meningen være med genindføre kontrol ved den dansk-tyske grænse?

Således Abenraas borgmester Thomas Andresen. Meningen turde vel være den samme, at sikre at Danmark ikke bliver overløbet af nogle af de mange, mange muslimske mænd, der allerede befinder sig i Tyskland. For det er overvejende muslimske mænd, som Ben Shapiro skriver i Breitbart.uk, der skyller over grænserne

On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that terrorist infiltration was “a possibility. I mean, you can’t, you can’t dismiss that out of hand.” He then added, “Obviously, if you look at those images though, it’s pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families.”

Actually, images show a disproportionate number of young males in crowds of refugees. And those images reflect statistical reality: according to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Mediterranean Sea refugees are overwhelmingly male: just 13 percent are women, and just 15 percent are children. The other 72 percent are men. Compare that population to the refugees in the Middle East from the same conflicts: 49.5 percent male, and 50.5 percent female, with 38.5 percent under the age of 12. Those are wildly different populations.

And they act in wildly different ways. According to The Daily Mail (UK), Syrian refugees have turned the Greek island of Lesbos into a “war zone,” and refugees in Hungary taunted police with Islamic chants of “Allahu Akbar.” Hungarian national television channel M1 reported on Tuesday that “Islamist terrorists, disguised as refugees, have shown up in Europe… Many who are now illegal immigrants fought alongside Islamic State before.”

Yet concerns about ancillary motives, repeated by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, have made him an international pariah. Orban rightly pointed out that refugees attempting to travel to Europe are not doing so “because they are in danger, it’s because they want something else.” Clearly, this is true. The father of the three-year-old drowned child, for example, lived in Turkey for three years before attempting to cross to Greece via rubber boat. There is no record of his abuse at the hands of the Turkish authorities.

Other political outcasts include politicians who want to give priority to Christian refugees. Yves Nicolin, mayor of Roanne, France, said his town would house Christian refugees to ensure “they are not terrorists in disguise”; Mayor of Belfort Damien Meslot said Christians should get first priority because “they are the most persecuted.” But the French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve objected to this logic: “I really don’t understand this distinction. I condemn it and I think it’s dreadful.”

Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen mener ikke, der er grund til at frygte terrorister blandt migranterne, mens hans gamle arbejdsplads PET dog mener “at der blandt flygtninge fra Syrien/Irak kan være personer, der sympatiserer med militant islamisme”. Måske har de talt med den libanesiske undervisningsminister Elias Bousaab, der mener at vide at 2% af de arabiske migranter er ISIS. Tænk at det blev dem, der tog livet af Schengen og på lidt længere sigt EU.

To much monkey business

En nærmest bedragerisk køn araber bærer vidnesbyrd om en forfejlet samfundsmodel; det multietniske/religiøse/rac… det multiske samfund.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-09-10-kl-1404071

Venstrefløjen tror ikke de flygtninge og migranter, på hvem det vil bygge det nye Vesten, over en dørtærskel. Mistroen til folket er en forlængelse af mistro til folk. Men det er værd at lytte til folk, inden man lukker dem ude, for nissen flytter jo med. Som i de tyske gader, hvor an kan opleve kurdere og tyrkere deltager i et gæstespil om deres hjemlandes vemodige kulturudvekslinger

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”.

Nyt fra Mordor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rollemodellen flytter med

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

Herunder ses han med Labours Ed Balls

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

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

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

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

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

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress