Michael Mann: Eventually it will be illegal to deny climate change?

Klima, Ytringsfrihed — Drokles on September 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Det er i hvert fald David Appell’s påstand, en aktiv klimablogger (Set via Watts Up With That ), som han fremkom med under en rablen på sin blog

They are too many, and too stupid. So what to do about them?

I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.

Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?

I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.

I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.

Michael Mann, som der refereres til, er skaberen af FN’s Klimapanels berømte Ishockeystavs graf, den graf, der hævdede at den globale temperatur ikke havde fluktueret de seneste tusind år (og således afskaffet middelalderens varmeperiode og den Lille Istid, som svenskerne ellers benyttede med noget held til at gå over isen for at angribe København) førend industrialiseringen satte gange i en voldsom udledning af CO2, som så har sat gang i varmeacceleration uden fortilfælde. Grafen gjorde ham til en stjerne i klimamiljøet og en hovedperson i udfærdigelsen af klimapanelets 7-årlige rapporter. Han siges at repræsentere konsensus når det drejer sig om at forudsige klimaet - mon ogsåhans lovgivningsforudsigelser er konsensus? Kan klimavidenskab virkeligt sidestilles med islam?

Et forsvar for
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

Diverse — Drokles on September 29, 2012 at 7:45 pm

The Commentator har en glimrende artikel om de millioner af menneskeliv DDT har sparet ved først og fremmest at bekæmpe malaria. Men alt godt får en ende og enden er ofte rød-grøn

Then, in 1962, “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson was published – supposedly documenting the effect of DDT on the environment in harming and even killing not only animals and birds, but also humans. More specifically, the book details alleged causal links between DDT and breast cancer and diabetes in humans, as well as the effects of DDT on egg shell fragility in birds of prey in particular, leading to reductions in population.

The book’s publication and its influence were profound. It is no coincidence that Al Gore, on its reissue in 1994, wrote an introduction extolling Carson’s book: “Because Carson’s work led to a ban on DDT, it may be that the human species…or at least countless human lives, will be saved because of the words she wrote.” The clown prince of man-made global warming can’t help himself.

Ultimately, DDT was banned in the USA in 1972, with most developed countries following in the 1970s and 1980s.

(…)

But let’s look at the evidence on DDT. On breast cancer, a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1997, “Plasma organochlorine levels and the risk of breast cancer”. It concluded that “Our data do not support the hypothesis that exposure to DDT and PCBs increases the risk of breast cancer.” This study is not unique.

Another supposed victim of DDT, the Birds of prey group, has had its numbers closely monitored in the U.S and the number of ospreys grew during DDT usage – from 191 in 1946, to 288 in 1956, to 457 in 1967, and 630 in 1972. A 1969 review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain found falcon reductions had finished in 1966 despite the use of DDT. It said: “There is no close correlation between the decline in population of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT.”

Finally, the hysteria surrounding DDT and the quality of eggshells is also based on shakey ground. The Cecil, Bitman, Harris paper found no effect on eggshells, if adequate calcium is in a DDT diet. Published in Poultry Science in 1971 it concluded: “When carefully reviewed, Dr. Bitman’s study revealed that the quail in the study were fed a diet with a calcium content of only 0.56 percent (a normal quail diet consists of 2.7 percent calcium). Calcium deficiency is a known cause of thin eggshells. After much criticism, Bitman repeated the test, this time with sufficient calcium levels. The birds produced eggs without thinned shells.”

The Dr. ML Scott et al. study in 1975 concluded: “Dietary polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT and related compounds, in well controlled experiments, produced no detrimental effects upon egg shell quality”

In 2004 the late Dr. Gordon Edwards, Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University, wrote a devastating critique and bluntly opined: “The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of deaths, while sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect-borne diseases. This means DDT.”

Som Chesterton observerede så holder folk ikke op med at tro blot fordi de holder op med at tro på Gud.

Politikens Bredal mener at “vores principper” kan holde til at blive knægtet

Diverse, Globalisering, Kulturradikalisme, Politiken, Pressen, Satire, Ytringsfrihed, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 28, 2012 at 5:58 pm

“Film, fatwa og tegninger er ikke samme sag” slår Politikens Bjørn Bredal så rigtigt fast. Men tager politikensk fejl

Man ved snart ikke, hvad man skal sukke mest over, provokatørerne eller de mange, der bider på provokationerne. Provokatørerne er decideret ondsindede, for de må have vidst eller håbet, at de kunne udløse både vold og drab.

Derimod har de fleste af dem, der har ladet sig provokere til at demonstrere, været i deres gode ret, selv om deres vrede er svær at forstå.

Men drabene på den amerikanske ambassadør i Libyen og hans medhjælpere er jo forbrydelser, som ingen hellig vrede skal have lov at undskylde, og det samme gælder al mulig anden vold og lemlæstelse, som skal forestille at være retfærdiggjort af den provokerende film.

Så selv om man altså ikke kan undskylde vold og drab - det “er jo forbrydelser”, trods alt - så er det ”provokatørerne”, ikke volds- og drabsmændene, men “provokatørerne”, der er decideret ondsindede.

Men det er ikke alle, der provokerer muslimer der er ondsindede. Salman Rushdie er en stakkel fordi han er kunster og “har taget afstand fra filmen” Innocence Of Muslims. Og heller ikke det franske venstredrejede satireblad Charlie Hebdo, som jo også og igen har lavet Muhammedtegninger er ondsinde. Hvorfor? Jo…

Det ville næsten være provokerende mærkeligt, hvis de på det lille tegnede blad aldeles overså ugens store historie.

På den måde er der noget ret uskyldigt provokerende over Charlie Hebdo. Bladet spiller sin rolle, normaliteten opretholdes.

Men der er noget skyldigt provokerende ved den hadefude amerikanske film. Og noget helt utilladeligt provokerende ved den fornyede ’dødsdom’ over Rushdie.

Måske Jyllands-Posten ville få fornyet respekt på Politiken ved at gøre det til sin faste rolle, skabe en ny normalitet, at trykke Muhammedtegninger? I så fald vil globaliseringsparathed, som det så smukt hed for en del år tilbage, på Politiken betyde at skomageren skal blive ved sin læst.

Og Bredal undrer sig dernæst over “at millioner af muslimer verden over i den grad tager på vej” over en hvilken som helst ytring, som afsæt for en klassisk Ellemann

Men det gør de altså, og så må vi jo både forsøge at forstå, hvad det går ud på, og (ikke mindst belært af de særligt danske erfaringer med Jyllands-Postens tegninger) finde en pragmatisk vej frem, hvor vi fastholder ytringsfriheden som princip, men ikke som en pligt til hverken at dumme sig eller provokere ved enhver given lejlighed.

Det kan vores principper sagtens holde til…

Hvis “vores principper” er Politikens egne principper så er svaret ja, det kan de sagtens holde til. Men hvis ”vores principper“ er den vestlige kulturs principper om ytringsfrihed så er svaret desværre nej. Bredals præmis er at muslimerne altså tager på vej (reagerer med vold og terror) og at det er derfor at vi skal ændre adfærd. Og dette er decideret at give efter for vold og trusler. Og hvis ikke vi tillige skal bryde vores princip om ikke at diskriminere må dette hensyn gælde alle personer, bevægelser, fællesskaber og sammenslutninger af enhver art, der har lyst til at tage på vej. Og det kan vores principper ikke holde til.

Det amerikanske præsidentvalg 2012, del 3. - Media bias

Pressen, USA — Sobieski on September 27, 2012 at 8:18 pm

Romney har problemer !

Romney træder i spinaten !

Romney betaler kun 14% i skat !

Romney, øh øh øh er ufolkelig og meget andet !

Hvis man følger med i den amerikanske valgkamp over en bred vifte af medier, kan man med stor præcision udpege de amerikanske nyhedskanaler der styrer det narrativ der dominerer nyhedsbilledet her i Danmark. Fortællingen er, at Romney har tabt på forhånd, eller at hvis han ikke gør noget nu, lige nu, vil han sten sikkert tabe. Det er lige meget, om fortælleren er Mads Fuglede, Kristelig Dagblads Michael Ehrenreich, eller JP eller Berlingske - narrativet er det samme og direkte kopieret.

Tag Berlingskes USA korrespondent Poul Høi. På Berlingskes webside “Høisonten”(ja, den hedder den) , skriver eller copy-paster han: …Ugen gik i forvejen så skævt, at Mitt Romney lige så godt kunne offentliggøre sin endelige selvangivelse for 2011.
Og Berlingske skriver i en anden artikel Romney lægger skattepapirer frem:

Romney, som i samme ombæring afslørede sin selvangivelse for 2011, skulle således have betalt mindst 13,6 procent i skat årligt i en periode på 20 år, skriver hans revisorer i et brev. Mitt Romney betalte sidste år helt specifikt 1,9 millioner dollars, godt 11 millioner kroner, i skat af en indtægt på mere end 75 millioner kroner. Men havde præsidentkandidaten troet, at kritikken ville forstumme i kølvandet på den meddelelse, tog han fejl. Først og fremmest taler alle amerikanere nu igen om, hvor rig deres ene præsidentkandidat er, og demokraternes Harry Reid, som har været særligt kritisk overfor Mitt Romneys personlige skatteforhold, er stadig af den holdning, at Romney i perioder slet ikke har betalt skat…


Løgneren Harry Reid

Lad os lige tage den med senator Harry Reid, som er en af de mest venstreorienterede medlemmer af senatet, at han “stadig er af den holdning, at Romney i perioder ikke har betalt skat” er vist nok en ret fattig måde at sige, at Harry Reid lyver stærkere end en hest kan rende. Det korrekte citat er: “Det siges at han [Mitt Romney] ikke har betalt noget i skat i 10 år. Lad ham bevise at han har betalt skat, for det har han ikke.”

Der har I det. Men Romney betaler skat. Harry Reid, senatets “majority leader”, er en løgner. Det siges at… - Hvem er det der siger det!? Det er jo ham. Ordene kommer ud af hans mund. Han ejer påstanden. Demokraternes førstemand i senatet er en løgner. Se det er da også en nyhed, man kunne skrive noget om. Hermed er idéen lagt frit ud.

Berlingske formidler venstrefløjspropaganda

For at vende tilbage til “Høisonten”, så finder Poul Høi det relevant at kolportere en historie fra kommu’erne på Salon.com, om at den elendige Romney kampagne kan trække Paul Ryan med ned i sølet. Eller hvad med Obama talerøret “Mother Jones”? Her citeres

- Obama fører lige nu med 3,7 point. I de seneste 50 år har ingen kandidat tabt så stor en føring.

- Ingen kandidat, som i slutningen af september har 47 procents tilslutning, har nogensinde tabt valget. Obama har 48,3 procent lige nu.

- Store ændringer er ikke umulige i de sidste uger, men over de seneste 20 år er de blevet mere og mere sjældne.

Voila, New York Times, The Guardian, Washington Post, Mother Jones, Huffington Post, Salon, osv. En perlerække af venstredrejede mainstream nyhedskanaler, der alle ønsker at videreføre Obama regimet. Men ikke kun Berlingske holder Romney-er-færdig bøhmanden i live, det er også JP. “Romney er ved at miste ældre vælgere” eller “Bruger Romney selvbruner!”. Vi har ærligt talt fortjent bedre end et bovlamt Jyllands Posten.

Hvad meningsmålingerne egentligt fortæller

Nå, men nu da det åbenbart går dårligt for Romney/Ryan, hvad siger meningsmålingerne så? Fra den 15-21 September var valgprognosen iføle Gallup 47% Obama - 47% Romney. Det er dødt løb! Inden for den statistiske afvigelse kunne Romney faktisk være foran, og det imod en siddende præsident oven i købet. Se hvad Rasmussen tracking poll siger:

romney_vs_obama_september_26_20121

Hvor fanden er det lige Obamas massive føring er blevet af.

Et andet problem, er den indbyggede tendens flere meningsmålings bureauer arbejder med, som klart favoriserer Demokraterne. Ofte bruges der samples som har en markant overvægt af potentielle vælgere der identificerer sig som Democrats. Det er med den begrundelse, at der ved valget i 2008 var flere vælgere der identificerede sig selv som Democrats, og det er denne procentuelle vægtning mod venstrefløjen der føres med over i sammensætningen af adspurgte vælgere. Altså de omtalte ’samples’ F.eks benytter Washington Post en meningsmåling, hvor der er 8% flere Democrats blandt de adspurgte. Disse polls fra venstredrejede medier bør behandles med stor skepsis. Situationen i 2008 var radikalt anderledes end den er i 2012. For fire år siden gik rock-stjernen Obama til valg mod oldingen McCain og vandt en klar sejr. Ikke noget jordskredsvalg, men en sejr med en komfortabel margin. I dag er stjernen falmet, arbejdsløsheden over 8%, USAs Mellemøsten-politik slået fejl, grøn energi er slået fejl, flere amerikanere er på rationeringsmærker osv.
Hvis præsidentvalget er afgjort, er det snarere afgjort til Romneys fordel.

Hvem var det der betalte skat?

Romney bliver i pressen sværtet som skatteunddrager (dvs. økonomisk frihedskæmper), men han betaler faktisk indkomstskat i modsætning til 45% af de amerikanske husholdninger. Det amerikanske skattesystem har så mange rabatter indbygget, at næsten halvdelen af husstandene ikke betaler indkomstskat. Det grumme kapitalist USA har et skattesystem der er lige så progressivt som det danske.
Så Romney betaler 14% i indkomstskat, og det er dog alligevel en del mere end 0%. Tallene her viser dog ikke hele billedet. Romney har ikke modtaget en lønseddel i mange år, fordi hans indkomst kommer fra aktieafkast som er beskattet anderledes, og fuldt lovligt. Som guvernør for Massachusetts fravalgte Romney at modtage regulær løn for embedet. Men ser man hans skattebidrag for 2011 i Dollars, ligger det på $1,935,708. Et ganske imponerende beløb i nøgne tal. Samme år gav han $4,020,772 til velgørenhedsformål, noget nær 30% af hans årlige indkomst.
Kontrasten til community organizer Obama er slående. Romney - den filantropiske jobskaber og hans rival - postkolonial politisk mafioso.

PS. Her er en lille quiz: Hvorfor er visse polling bureauer tendentiøse i deres dækning af valget? Alle konspirationsteorier har interesse…

Obama og muslimerne

Diverse — Drokles on September 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Charles Krauthammer skriver i Washington Post

In the week following 9/11/12 something big happened: the collapse of the Cairo Doctrine, the centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy. It was to reset the very course of post-9/11 America, creating, after the (allegedly) brutal depredations of the Bush years, a profound rapprochement with the Islamic world.

Never lacking ambition or self-regard, Obama promised in Cairo, June 4, 2009, “a new beginning” offering Muslims “mutual respect,” unsubtly implying previous disrespect. Curious, as over the previous 20 years, America had six times committed its military forces on behalf of oppressed Muslims, three times for reasons of pure humanitarianism (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo), where no U.S. interests were at stake.

But no matter. Obama had come to remonstrate and restrain the hyperpower that, by his telling, had lost its way after 9/11, creating Guantanamo, practicing torture, imposing its will with arrogance and presumption.

First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.

(…)It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist.

What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence?

obama-we-are-all-osama

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

obema-med-jc3b8dec3b8jne-og-jc3b8destarsnstripes

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

obama-som-abe-pa-flag

Obama til FN 25/9 2012

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

obamadukke-brc3a6ndes

Fra Washington Times

President Barack Obama is about to release or transfer 55 Gitmo prisoners, despite reports that the Libyan believed to be behind the killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was a former Guantanamo inmate transferred to Libyan custody.

politimandens-vantro

Billederne er hentet her

Bahrains multireligiøse tolerance - et mørke i helt sort.

Diverse — Drokles on September 26, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Kristeligt Dagblad giver en typisk bagvendt måde medier oftest fortæller om muslimers forfølgelse af anderledes tænkende mennesker. Man fremhæver det mindst forfærdelige, som om det var godt blot set i lyset af sin sørgelige baggrund.

Planer om at bygge landets største romersk-katolske kirke er blevet udfordret af protester fra sunnimuslimske gejstlige, som har indsamlet underskrifter mod at bygge kirker på den arabiske halvø, der betragtes som ”islams fødested”

Bygningen af den største romersk-katolske kirke i Golf-regionen skulle have givet det lille kongedømme Bahrain mulighed for at fremvise sin tradition for religiøs tolerance i et område, hvor kristne kirker ofte må holde lav profil.

Alene i de sidste 19 måneder er flere end 50 personer blevet dræbt i Bahrain i forbindelse med offentlige uroligheder og religiøse spændinger” fortæller avisen, men fortsætter glad “Trods de aktuelle interne religiøse stridigheder har Bahrain en multireligiøs tradition og tolerance, der er unik for Golfen“.

Så hvori består den unikke multireligiøse tradition for tolerance, må man spørge sig selv, når der ud af en befolkning på 1,2 mio. mennesker, hvoraf de 81% er muslimer ifølge Wikipedia (99% ifølge Kristeligt Dagblad), 9% kristne og resten jødiske og andre religioner bliver slået mere end 50 mennesker ihjel (hvilket svarer til ca. 200 menneskers død efter danske forhold). Og vi får ikke at vide hvem, der slår hvem ihjel!

Det er kongen i Bahrains enevældige ide om tolerance, som står overfor folkets ide om den rette sammenhæng. Regimet mod religionen. Kongen vil have investeringer i landets økonomi og de gejstlige vil have investeringer i efterlivet. something gotta’ give

I sin prædiken under fredagsbønnen i sidste måned erklærede en af de fremtrædende gejstlige, sheik Adel Hassan al-Hamad, at det ikke kan retfærdiggøres at bygge flere kirker i Bahrain, da ”enhver, der mener, at en kirke er et sandt sted for tilbedelse, har brudt med sin tro på Gud”.

Så hvis vi lige tager giraf ørerne på et øjeblik, så er det vi hører sheik Adel Hassan al-Hamad sige er, at da alle i islamisk teologi er født muslimer er enhver der tilhører en anden religion at betragte som en frafalden, en apostat, en synder der i udgangspunktet står til straf. Det er hvad vi hører ham sige og det er hvad han siger for således er islamisk teologi meget klar og sheik Adel Hassan al-Hamad har brugt det meste af sit liv på at memorere fortolkningens lukkede porte. Det er denne medfødte dødsstraf som muslimsk tolerance og barmhjertighed skal ses i lyset af.

Så hvad venter der udenfor Bahrains blodige tolerance? Canada Free Press skriver

The situation for Christians in many parts of the world is grim. Every five minutes a Christian dies for his or her faith, according to one international report.

While persecution remains horrendous in the Communist countries of North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Laos, the Muslim world is the global leader in sheer numbers of Christians killed, beaten, and churches bombed.

(…)

Islam, The Way, is the complete focus of the Muslim life. All other religions are not merely an annoyance, but an offense against the truth of God as reveled by Mohammad. Islamic teaching is clear: There is no other God but Allah, and Mohammad is His Prophet.

Interpretations on how non-Muslims are to be treated varies according to place and time. There have been periods of quiet, where non-Muslims are left in peace. Islam does teach that the “people of the Book,” Christians and Jews, are to receive a degree of “toleration.”

That “toleration,” praised by academics in so many school and college textbooks, is in truth a grinding form of daily oppression where life and property is never secure.

In the best of times, the fate of Christians in Muslim lands is dangerous, and often depends on the level of anger of relatively small groups of fanatics. Accounts of the rape and forced marriage of Christian women, random assaults on Christian men, and the destruction of Christian churches occurred with regularity even before the current episode of uncontrollable rage. Jewish communities have been all but destroyed by this rage, it seems as though the Christians are next.

This same rage is also directed at any Moslem who wished to treat non-Moslems with simple dignity and respect.

The modern West, including the United States, is unwilling to acknowledge, let alone do anything about, the outrageous conditions of Christians in the Muslim world.

Og i Middle East Forum skriver Raymond Ibrahim om den iranske Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, der stod til en dødsdom for sin apostasi da han konverterede fra islam til kristendommen i en alder af 19 år og om den pakistanske evnesvage kristne pige der af en muslimsk pøbel stod anklaget for at have sat ild til en koran. Begge er de nu blevet løsladt (Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani efter 3 års fængsel), men ikke som en konsekvens af loven, da de i så fald slet ikke skulle have været fængslet i første omgang.

In light of all the above, why were Pastor Nadarkhani and Masih, the Christian girl—whose fates were sealed—released? Because unlike the many nameless and faceless Christians persecuted for blasphemy and apostasy in Pakistan and Iran, not to mention the rest of the Islamic world, the mainstream media actually reported the stories of these two in the West, prompting much public outrage, international condemnations, and the threat of diplomatic actions and/or sanctions.

For example, Canada just cut relations with Iran, citing, among other reasons the fact that Iran is “one of the world’s worst violators of human rights.” It was the very next day that Pastor Nadarkhani was “coincidentally” released, even as the Iranian regime, playing the victim, accused Canada of being “racist.”

These two particular Christians were simply too much of a liability to punish as Sharia law demands—the same Sharia, incidentally, that teaches Muslims to be lax and tolerant when in their interest. While it is good that Western outrage and condemnation was fundamentally responsible for the release of Nadarkhani and Masih, the West must learn that these two Christians merely represent the tip of the iceberg of Christian persecution in Muslim countries.

En død er en tragedie, en million døde er statistik, tilskrives Stalin nogen gange for at have sagt. Memri har en større rapport med statistik, som burde tale sit eget tydelige sprog

Close observers of Pakistan have voiced concern that the country is witnessing a gradual genocide of its minorities, the extent of which remains unrecognized by international human rights organizations. In April 2012, Nitin Pai, founder of the New Delhi-based think tank Takshashila Institution, expressed concern over the “systematic” killing of Pakistan’s minorities, saying: “[The attacks] are called sectarian violence, gang warfare, ethnic cleansing, kill-and-dump or counter-insurgency. It is perhaps because there are individual names for these crimes that we are missing the possibility that they might amount to a bigger one – genocide.”[1] Similar concerns have been raised by others in Pakistan and abroad, particularly by the Shi’ite Hazara community.[2] It should be noted that there have been previous cases of under-reported mass-killings in Pakistan which have been described as genocide, notably the massacre of some three million Bangla-speaking Muslims in 1971

This paper will examine the growing persecution of Pakistan’s religious minorities: Christians, Hindus and Sikhs, as well as Ahmadi Muslims and Shi’ite Muslims.[4] In recent years, anyone who is not a Muslim in Pakistani society – or groups of Muslims who are not considered to be Muslim socially and religiously or under Pakistan’s law – have been facing a sustained campaign of hate and religious persecution by Islamic groups and individuals, including government officials, legislators, judges, lawyers, police officers and clerics, who interpret law on their own terms and enforce it with the objective of making Pakistan a purer-than-ever Islamic nation. The persecution is manifested in the imprisonment of Christians and Ahmadi Muslims on charges of blasphemy; abduction of Hindu and Christian girls and their forced conversion to Islam; demolition and desecration of houses of worship; denial of food relief to non-Muslim flood victims by both government officials and wealthy philanthropists; denigration of and attacks on Shi’ite Muslims – and the deliberate and systematic killing of members of all these communities. Although not included in discussion here, it should be borne in mind that another significant group of the Pakistani population, the inhabitants of insurgency-affected Baluchistan, is facing persecution from Pakistani state and concern has been expressed (including by Pakistan’s Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry) over a large number of Baluchis who have disappeared – widely believed to have been abducted and killed by Pakistani intelligence agencies.[5]

Bahrains tolerante kongedømme er købt på en meget billig baggrund.

Ikke bare lyve, men leve på løgn

Diverse — Drokles on September 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

Jeg ved ikke hvad Lars Løkke Rasmussen mente da han forsøgte at lancere sig selv som Lille Lars fra Græsted og jeg ved heller ikke om det var sandt. Men jeg ved at det hurtigt viste sig at det ikke var et image han kunne leve på. Noget andet med Thorning og Obama. Deres personlige historier er en integreret del af deres politiske projekt, for Obama endda i nogen grad selve projektet. Drømmen om den første kvinde som statsminister eller den første neger (halvneger eller offwhite, hvis man skal være præcis) i det Hvide Hus er kun en del af dette.

Det har været vigtigt for Thorning været at vise sig som en ægte socialdemokrat især i formands opgøret med sødmælkskalven Frank Jensen. Her var det ikke var nok at have boet i Ishøj og derfor måtte Thorning bedyre noget så usympatisk at hun aldrig kunne forelske sig i en mand, hvis han stemte Venstre og på TV vise at hun nogen gange handlede i Netto, hvor hun var udmærket bekendt med prisniveauet - eller blot god til at læse op på en eksamen.

For det har været mistanken, som har naget i gamle socialdemokrater som Anker Jørgensen og de der romantiserede Ankers jævne baggrund, gennem hele hendes politiske karriere - at Thorning grundlæggende højst var en småborger. Derfor var det også en rasende Thorning der kaldte Freddy Blak for en pose lort efter han nedladende havde døbt hende Gucci Helle. Thorning har kæmpet hårdt for at bygge et heroisk men almindeligt image op om sin person, et image der er fyldt med så mange modstridende oplysninger at der er tvivl om alt fra hendes økonomi, adresse til hendes mands seksuelle observans. Jan Christensen skriver på 180 Grader

Som jeg har sagt før: Jeg ville egentlig ikke skrive mere om emnet, og alle og enhver ved efterhånden, at Helle Thorning-Schmidt lyver, næsten hver gang, hun åbner munden, men alligevel er jeg nødt til at reagere, når det bliver for tykt, og det gjorde det endnu engang i fredags på Socialdemokraternes kongres, da statsministeren talte om sin mor, hendes sparsommelighed og i det hele taget de, måtte man forstå, kummerlige forhold, familien levede under i Ishøj.

(…)

Problemet for Helle Thorning-Schmidt er bare - ud over, at moren vel næppe har været nødt til at sove i stuen, når den (ejer-)lejlighed, hun boede i, var på 100 m² - at hendes mor ikke var eneforsørger, hvilket man kan læse nedenfor i et uddrag fra en tidligere artikel, jeg skrev om Thorning-Schmidt. Tværtimod har familien altid haft penge nok. Vi fik jo også tilskud fra min mand. Spørgsmålet er så, om vi igen har at gøre med én af de særlige Thorning-Schmidtske fortolkninger af ord, så de kommer til at betyde noget andet, end de i virkeligheden - eller i hvert fald de fleste andre menneskers ører - gør?

Den amerikanske præsident Obama dyrker også sit image, men han lever måske mere end nogen på sine selvskabte myter. Daniel Pipes skriver bl.a. i Washington Times

Mr. Obama remains the mystery candidate with an autobiography full of gaps and even fabrications. For example, to sell his autobiography in 1991, Mr. Obama claimed that he “was born in Kenya.” He lied about never having been a member and candidate of the 1990s Chicago socialist New Party. When Stanley Kurtz produced evidence to establish that he was a member, Mr. Obama’s flacks smeared and dismissed Mr. Kurtz. Mr. Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” contains a torrent of inaccuracies and falsehoods about his maternal grandfather, his father, his mother, his parents’ wedding, his stepfather’s father, his high school friend, his girlfriend, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As Victor Davis Hanson put it, “If a writer will fabricate the details about his own mother’s terminal illness and quest for insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything.”

Into this larger pattern of mendacity about his past life arises the question of Mr. Obama’s discussion of his faith, perhaps the most singular and outrageous of his lies.

Asked about the religion of his childhood and youth, Mr. Obama offers contradictory answers. He finessed a March 2004 question, “Have you always been a Christian?” by replying: “I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.” But in December 2007, he belatedly decided to give a straight answer: “My mother was a Christian from Kansas. I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian.” In February 2009, however, he offered a completely different account:

“I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion. I didn’t become a Christian until I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college.”

He further elaborated on this answer in September 2010, saying, “I came to my Christian faith later in life.”

Which is it? Has Mr. Obama “always been a Christian” or did he “become a Christian” after college? Self-contradiction on so fundamental a matter of identity, when added to the general questioning about the accuracy of his autobiography, raises questions about veracity. Would someone telling the truth say such varied and opposite things about himself? Inconsistency is typical of fabrication: When making things up, it’s hard to stick with the same story.

(…)

I shall establish his having been born and raised a Muslim, provide confirming evidence from recent years, survey the perceptions of him as a Muslim, and place this deception in the larger context of Mr. Obama’s autobiographical fictions.

Og Washington Examiner har endda en artikelserie i 10 dele om “The Obama You Don’t Know“, her fra “A Childhood of Priviledge, Not Hardship“, som måske ikke er det mest interessant, men som giver en tynd undskyldning for at klaske Obama og Thorning i samme postering

Obama’s mother met her second husband, an Indonesian named Lolo Soetoro, while working at the East-West Center in Hawaii. They married, and in 1967, the young Obama, then known as Barry Soetoro, traveled to Indonesia with his mother when the Indonesian government recalled his stepfather.

In Indonesia, the family’s circumstances improved dramatically. According to Obama in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father,” Lolo’s brother-in-law was “making millions as a high official in the national oil company.” It was through this brother-in-law that Obama’s stepfather got a coveted job as a government relations officer with the Union Oil Co.

The family then moved to Menteng, then and now the most exclusive neighborhood of Jakarta, where bureaucrats, diplomats and economic elites reside.

A popular Indonesia travel site describes Menteng: “Designed by the Dutch Colonial Government in 1920s, Menteng still retains its graceful existence with its beautiful parks, cozy street cafes and luxurious housing complexes.”

In 1971, his mother sent young Obama back to Hawaii, where his grandmother, Madelyn, known as Toots, would become one of the first female vice presidents of a Honolulu bank. His grandfather was in sales.

Obama’s grandparents moved the same year into Punahou Circle Apartments, a sleek new 10-story apartment building just five blocks from the private Punahou School, which Obama would attend from 1971 to 1979.

Obama explains in “Dreams from My Father” that his admission to Punahou began “the start of something grand, an elevation in the family status that they took great pains to let everyone know.”

To his credit, Obama did not downplay Punahou’s upscale status, noting in his autobiography that it “had grown into a prestigious prep school, an incubator for island elites. Its reputation had helped sway my mother in her decision to send me back to the States.”

Obama also admitted in the book that his grandfather pulled strings to get him into the school. “There was a long waiting list, and I was considered only because of the intervention of Gramps’s boss, who was an alumnus.”

The school still features a lush hillside campus overlooking the Waikiki skyline and the Pacific Ocean. It was one of the most expensive schools on the island, and both Obama and his half sister Maya Soetoro-Ng received scholarships.

While the Dunhams were not among the wealthiest families on the island, he nevertheless studied and socialized with the children of the social and financial elite. Obama has said he didn’t fit in at the school. But that’s not how other Hawaiians remember it.

(…)

Tellingly, Obama has never lived in a black neighborhood. Maraniss reported in his book that when leftist activist Jerry Kellman interviewed Obama for a community organizing job in Chicago, he asked Obama how he felt about living and working in the black community for the first time in his life.

Obama accepted the job but chose not to live among those he would be organizing. Instead, he commuted 90 minutes each way daily from his apartment in Chicago’s famous Hyde Park to the Altgeld Gardens housing project where he worked.

At Thorning og Obama lyver om deres politik er almindeligt politikergebet, som vi ikke lægger dem til last, men måske mere end andre politikere lever de på løgn. De løgne de lever på, fortæller noget essentielt om venstrefløjens drømme og forståelse af virkeligheden. En diffus drøm om en særlig autencitet, der i sig selv fortæller om forandring og håb. Og det er autencitet der for venstrefløjen giver giver en hvilken som helst forandring og et hvilket som helst håb legitimitet.

Endnu en stødende muslimfilm

Diverse, islam — Drokles on September 25, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Denne film som viser muslimer er set hos Jihad Watch

Israels omgivelser

Diverse — Drokles on September 22, 2012 at 10:39 pm

Det særegne Nørrebrosammenhold

Diverse — Drokles on September 22, 2012 at 9:25 am

Københavneravisen Politiken følger historien om den modige Jane Birgitte Pedersen, kaldet ‘mor Jane’, ejer af værtshuset Cafe Viking på Nørrebro siden hun afviste et spirende gangstervæsens afpresningsforsøg og efterfølgende angreb. Forleden var der endnu et støttearrangement, en hel to-dages fest faktisk, for Jane Birgitte Pedersen, “der skal vise, at Nørrebro står sammen mod bandernes krav om beskyttelsespenge”.

Klokken er 16.30, og regnen står ned over de omkring 150 personer, der er mødt op for at deltage i festlighederne.

Foran scenen i Mimersgade viser de deres tydelige støtte med larmende bifald, der markerer, at københavnerbydelen står bag ‘Mor Jane’ i kampen mod banderne.

(…)
Netop med udgangspunkt i den tætpakkede og feststemte Café Viking breder gadefestens ølstande, shawarmaboder og to scener sig i både Mimersgade og Ægirsgade.

Og med hver sin fadøl i hænderne styrer 64-årige Birthe Juul Petersen og 86-årige Britta Frederiksen målrettet mod Bruce Springsteen-tonerne fra den ene scene.

»Vi er her for at støtte op omkring Jane og det her arrangement. Det er vigtigt, at vi kan være sammen allesammen på Nørrebro. Alle mennesker er gode nok, uanset nationalitet, bare de ikke er bøller«, siger Birthe Juul Petersen, der efter at have boet på Østerbro er flyttet tilbage til Nørrebro.

Mimersgade i København ligger ikke overraskende i Mimersgadekvarteret, ettidligere arbejderkvarter, der også er kendt som det mytologiske kvarter fordi gaderne er opkaldt efter guder og helte fra den nordiske mytologi. “Antallet af beboere var i 2004 16.610, hvoraf en tredjedel er af anden etnisk herkomst” kan Wikipedia fortælle og det skulle man nemlig ikke have troet, hvis man ser på Politikens billeddækning

Shawarmaboder eller ej, så tæller sammenholdet mod bandeuvæsenet kun blandt hvide danskere, der som ‘Mor Jane’ synes at Pia Kjærsgaard er lidt for skrap. Det er også ok, især fordi man jo altid kan flytte tilbage til Østerbro.

Muhammed i Gary Larsons streg

Diverse — Drokles on September 22, 2012 at 7:56 am

En klassisk Gary Larson, som en lidt forsinket støtte til Charlie Hebdo’s egne kreationer.

Peter Schiff docerer et par sandheder om kick-starten

Økonomi og finans — Sobieski on September 20, 2012 at 9:59 pm

I en tid hvor journalister spørger undrende hvorfor forbrugerne (læg mærke til den marxistiske erstatning af begrebet “borgerne”) ikke forbruger endnu! mere, og hvorfor dog kick-start og stimulusser ikke fungerer, undrer det at disse repræsentanter for den fjerde statsmagt ikke søger svar hos kætterne blandt de økonomiske sandsigere. OK, det undrer ikke, men nuvel…
Debatten med Clemens Kjersgaard løb over skærmen for kort tid siden, hvor bl.a. socialdemokratisk økonomisk vismand Christen Sørensen dystede mod Børsens Robert Spliid. Fra Christen Sørensens side blev der øst fra den keynesianske gryde, hvor forbrug og stimulus er det eneste saliggørende. Tonen blev skinger og man fornemmede desperationen i den socialistiske lejr nu da underbudgettering i hidtil uset grad ikke har vist den ønskede effekt. Se evt. udsendelsen her: Debatten på DR2

Der skal andre boller på suppen og et godt alternativ til det dominerende narrativ om nationaløkonomi kan findes her. Det er veloplagt og til at forstå for de fleste, og et perspektiv der kun er meget lidt plads til på statsfinansierede public service medier.

Honey, You Didn’t Build That

USA, Økonomi og finans — Drokles on September 18, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Som svar til Obama’s ringeagt for det frie initiativ

Sunni-Shiite Debate Deteriorates into a Brawl on Egyptian TV

Diverse — Drokles on September 17, 2012 at 10:31 pm

For mig personligt er Hillary Clintons ord modbydelige og forkastelige

Diverse, Satire, islam — Drokles on September 17, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Man er blevet hærdet med årene. Vores lederes svigt og svig og knæfald for terror, vold og trusler er blevet så meget dagligdag at vi næsten ikke ænser hvor slemt det står til. De er selvfølgelig godt hjulpet på vej af medierne der nærmest har indtaget et standpunkt imod ytringsfrihed i en eller anden pragmatisk forståelse for de, der vil ytringsfriheden til livs.

Men den amerikanske udenrigsminister Hillary Clintons beklagelse over både ytringer og vold er nok en lille studsning værd for som topdiplomat er alle hendes ord vejet på en guldvægt og udførligt lagt i den rette orden. Det er meningen at man skal læse djævlen i detaljen.

“Let me state very clearly and I hope it is obvious that the United States government had nothing to do with this video,” Clinton said on Thursday during a meeting with Moroccan leaders at the State Department. “We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.”"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and repressible,” she continued. “It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification — none at all — for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms. And we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue.”

The secretary went on to explain that many people around the world could not understand why the U.S. could not prevent films like “Innocence of Muslims” from being distributed.

“I would note in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible,” she said. “But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be.”

Clinton slår først og fremmest fast at den amerikanske regering intet har med filmen Innocence of Muslims at gøre i selvfølgelig forståelse af at muslimer ikke har den ringeste ide om hvorledes et frit samfund fungerer. At muslimer verden over lever i udtalt uvidenhed om den frihed de drømmer om mindst lige så meget som os er en udbredt sandhed i de korrektes kredse. Senere belærer hun, opfyldt af sin egen korrekthed, muslimerne om hvorledes de bør opføre sig, hvis de skal være sande muslimer.

Herefter slår hun korsets tegn for sig og lægger så megen afstand til filmen Innocence of muslims som det er muligt uden decideret at bande. “[T]o me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible” er langt vægtigere ord end argumenter. Men det til trods kan vold ikke retfærdiggøres i Clintons verdensbillede.

Så langt har Clinton demonstreret den klassiske vege politiker, der først fralægger sig ansvar, dernæst undsiger værket, som var det en selvstændig pointe, roser det sande islam, igen uden et eneste argument og de mange muslimer der endnu ikke har konstrueret en bombe før end hun undsiger vold i al almindelighed for what is that good for? De korrekte’s høje er alle indtaget. Men der mangler en høj, ytringsfriheden.

Ytringsfriheden er ikke længere en af de korrektes høje og indtages kun her i embeds medfør. Og det er her man (man, det vil sige jeg selv) efterhånden er blevet døv for absurditeter. Efter at have udtrykt stærke værditilkendegivelser om det ‘modbydelige’ værk, rost islam som ‘this great religion’ og fordømt vold er ytringsfrihed en gammel vane som amerikanerne nu engang går og plejer. Ikke et eneste positivt ord om ytringsfriheden, ikke antydningen af dens essentielle betydning i forfatning og forfatningsens essentielle betydning for friheden, ingen støtte til de amerikanere for hvem det er deres fødselsret

I stedet nøjes Clinton med at pointere at selvom det skulle være teknologisk muligt at hindre det frie udtryk - ja, man har vel lov at drømme - så har USA nu engang en lang tradition for ytringsfrihed og denne er beskyttet i loven så politikerne ikke kan gribe ind. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om hvad man vil, men hvad man kan. Clinton starter og slutter med at vaske sine hænder i tiltro til at muslimen gennem tilsviningen af filmen og hyldesten af islam forstår, at det er en fejl i folket og ikke den amerikanske regering eller islam. Og Clinton får dermed også udtrykt, at hun ikke ser det som sin opgave at forsvare det amerikanske folks rettigheder. Og det er  for mig personligt både modbydeligt og forkasteligt.

Mere islamisk barbari

Diverse — Drokles on September 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Teksten på Youtube siger “Foreign Terrorist ‘Rebels’ Savages in Syria Throw Postal Workers from Windows“. Det er i hvert fald muslimsk barbari og blodtørst.

Hvorfor er der ingen der faktatjekker Muslimernes Uskyld?

Diverse — Drokles on September 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm

I medierne gentages konstant at filmen Innocence of Muslims lyver om den muslimske profet Muhammed’s gøren og laden. Der er ikke et eneste faktatjek, som de fleste medier ellers er så glade for i disse dage, af hverken filmens påstande eller dens kritikeres påstande. så tillad mig at komme med et ganske kort udkast til tre værsentlige påstande der fremføres i Innocence of Muslims, som alle benægtes af muslimer og deres journalistiske talerør. Historynet.com har denne hagiografiske konstatering om Muhammed krigeren

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

Muhammed var altså ganske krigerisk, uagtet den malplacerede lovprisning. Muhammed var også pædofil

Da islam er slutstenen, det endelige segl osv og Muhammed er det perfekte menneske efter hvem alle skal modellere sin moral og sine handlinger giver det ikke mening at undskylde Muhammed eller noget som helst islamisk med tiden han levede i. Islam er ud over tid og derfor er eksemplet til efterfølgelse selvfølgelig også sexovergreb på småpiger. Muhammed var tillige massemorder, så langt hans teknologi tillod det, som Islamwatch fortæller

After a continuous siege of 25 days, the Banu Qurayza Jews surrendered to Prophet Muhammad unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.

Sa’d bin Mu’adh was the leader of a large Medinan tribe, the Aws (or Aus), some of whom favored old alliances with the Jews. The leader was an elderly man who was seriously wounded in the battle of trench (Source: Ibn Ishaq, p. 462; Watt, Muhammad at Medina, pp. 188-89; 214-17). Sa’d gave the verdict that, “that all the able-bodied (adult) male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters.” Compassionate Prophet Muhammad answers in endorsement of this: “You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens…”, (Source: Ibn Ishaq, pp. 463-64; Tabari vol. 8, p. 34).

To separate adult men from the pre-pubescent boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them (Abu Dawud; see Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)..

Sunan Abu-Dawud-Book 38, No. 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
“I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

The apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar.

Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still the market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief, and they were brought with their hands bound to their neck by a rope. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he did not only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text states that HE sent for them and STRUCK OFF their heads. Prophet Muhammad also had had huge spoils (Maal-E-Ganimat) from this “final solution” of this richest Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza.

This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed.

Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: “ No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.” (Abu Dawud)

The following narrative says that Prophet Muhammad took one beautiful woman for himself.

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)

Banu Qurayza’s Massacre supported by Merciful Allah:

Evidences from Quranic verses are very clear and surprisingly emphatic. Allah actually celebrated this slaughter and enslavement of Banu Qurayza Jews. That these verses were received during/after the Banu Qurayza incident were supported by most Quranic translators like Maoulana A. Yousuf Ali, Hazrat Maulana mufti Muhammad Shafi, Maulana Muhiuddin Khan etc, and of course, by the most famous Islamic scholar Ibn Ishaq. Merciful Allah promptly sent Qur’anic verses during that period of Banu Qurayza war to justify the cruelty of Prophet Muhammad.

Muhammed kan altså med meget god ret kaldes både blodtørstig, pædofil og krigerisk. Alligevel gentager danske journalister over hele linien, at det er filmen Innocence of Muslims, og ikke muslimerne, der lyver om Muhammeds gerninger og væsen.

En koptisk løsning?

Diverse — Drokles on September 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm

TV2 spekulerer i at “en gruppe af eksil-egyptere, der har meget anti-islamtiske holdninger” har lavet den meget omtalte Youtube film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’. Pajamas Media leger med den mere ildevarslende tese, at filmen er ment til at bane vejen for en ‘koptisk løsning’.

First of all, the footage is comical, like so much Pallywood footage. Just so obviously terrible that no self-respecting person would produce it — and certainly not for $5 million. It’s obviously intended to incite. It’s bathroom humor.

Second, the package is certainly a “lethal narrative“: namely, something aimed at accusing Israel/Jews of deliberately doing things that will harm non-Jews (in this case, to the Muslims whose feelings will be offended and to the U.S., whose ambassadors/representatives will be killed). In this sense, it is like Gaza Beach and the Ghalia family: real events (deaths from bombings, movies that provoke) turned against Israel and the Jews by a narrative that turns out to be false.

Third, the media jumped all over it without even checking to see if Bacile is registered as a real-estate agent, much less an Israeli (Bacile? Never heard this name, certainly not for a Jew), much less a real person.

The media’s eagerness to tell stories about Israelis/Jews behaving badly is as intense now as it was 12 years ago, and as with al Dura, this thirst for lethal narratives has dire consequences for everyone. They can’t resist stories of moral schadenfreude about the Jews. They’re killing their reputations, but it tastes too good to stop.

Endda en israeler med et navn der ligner en “stavformet bakterie” intet mindre.

Muslimsk barbari

Diverse — Drokles on September 13, 2012 at 5:35 pm

Om det er israelske soldaters blod der triumferende vises på gerningsmændenes hænder, amerikanske soldater der slæbes rundt i Mogadishus støvede gader, Gadaffi, der tæskes og voldtages ihjel, så det er den samme muslimske blodtørst som vi nu også har set med den ulykkelige amerikanske ambassadør i Libyen, som Washington Times fortæller

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered.

(…)

A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:

“Libya - USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets.”

barbarer-skc3a6nder-amerikansk-ambassadc3b8r

Front Page Magazine (hvorfra billedet også er taget) bemærker bl.a. at pøblen “has an equal number of beardos and non-beardos“, men hæfter sig mere seriøst ved…

Finally, we know that this was an inside job.

The mob knew where the Safe House was. The only was they could know that is if the United States shared that information with Libyan authorities. During the Sufi shrine attacks, it became known that Islamists made up a sizable portion of the Libyan security forces. So rather than a mob attack, as in Cairo, this was premeditated and directed violence made to look like a mob attack.

Det blodtørstige massehysteri er et kulturelt og religiøst udtryk, en af de frugter ved hvilken man kan kende islams træ.

Islam; The Untold Story

Diverse — Drokles on September 12, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Taget fra Snaphanen

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress