3 alternative forklaringer på borgerkrigen i Syrien

Vi starter  med den tidsmæssigt mest nære forklaring. En tørke skabt af globale klimaforandringer har forskubbet Syrien delikate sociale og politiske balancer, skriver Peter Sinclair for Climate Crocks

On September 2, The Atlantic published portions of a memorandum by William Polk, a former State Department policy planner, on the situation in Syria. The memorandum is long and detailed, but there is a section of particular relevance to those concerned about climate change and its effects.

Syria has been convulsed by civil war since climate change came to Syria with a vengeance. Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011.  Rainfall in most of the country fell below eight inches (20 cm) a year, the absolute minimum needed to sustain un-irrigated farming. Desperate for water, farmers began to tap aquifers with tens of thousands of new well.  But, as they did, the water table quickly dropped to a level below which their pumps could lift it.

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Commodity Intelligence Report, May 9, 2008

In some areas, all agriculture ceased.  In others crop failures reached 75%.  And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger.  Hundreds of thousands  of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies.  Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3  million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”

The domestic Syrian refugees immediately found that they had to compete not only with one another for scarce food, water and jobs, but also with the already existing foreign refugee population.  Syria already was a refuge for quarter of a million Palestinians and about a hundred thousand people who had fled the war and occupation of Iraq.  Formerly prosperous farmers were lucky to get jobs as hawkers or street sweepers.  And in the desperation of the times, hostilities erupted among groups that were competing just to survive.

Survival was the key issue.  The senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) representative in Syria turned to the USAID program for help. Terming the situation “a perfect storm,” in November 2008, he warned  that Syria faced “social destruction.” He noted that the Syrian Minister of Agriculture had “stated publicly that [the]  economic and social fallout from the drought was ‘beyond our capacity as a country to deal with.’”  But, his appeal fell on deaf ears:  the USAID director commented that “we question whether limited USG resources should be directed toward this appeal at this time.”  (reported on November 26, 2008 in cable 08DAMASCUS847_a to Washington and “leaked” to Wikileaks )

Whether or not this was a wise decision, we now know that the Syrian government made the situation much worse by its next action. Lured by the high price of wheat on the world market, it sold its reserves. In 2006, according to the US Department of Agriculture, it sold 1,500,000 metric tons or twice as much as in the previous year.  The next year it had little left to export; in 2008 and for the rest of the drought years it had to import enough wheat to keep its citizens alive.

So tens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry and impoverished former farmers flooded constituted a “tinder” that was ready to catch fire.  The spark was struck on March 15, 2011  when a relatively small group gathered in the town of Daraa to protest against government failure to help them.  Instead of meeting with the protestors and at least hearing their complaints, the government cracked down on them as subversives.  The Assads, who had ruled the country since 1971,  were not known for political openness or popular sensitivity.   And their action backfired.  Riots broke out all over the country,  As they did, the Assads attempted to quell them with military force.  They failed to do so and, as outside help – money from the Gulf states and Muslim “freedom fighters” from  the rest of the world – poured into the country, the government lost control over 30% of the country’s rural areas and perhaps half of its population.  By the spring of 2013, according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), upwards of 100,000 people had been killed in the fighting, perhaps 2 million have lost their homes and upwards of 2 million have fled abroad.  Additionally, vast amounts of infrastructure, virtually whole cities like Aleppo, have been destroyed.

Despite these tragic losses, the war is now thought to be stalemated: the government cannot be destroyed and the rebels cannot be defeated.  The reasons are not only military: they are partly economic– there is little to which the rebels could return;  partly political – the government has managed to retain the loyalty of a large part of the majority Muslim community which comprises the bulk of its army and civil service whereas the rebels, as I have mentioned, are fractured into many mutually hostile groups;  and partly administrative  – by and large the government’s  structure has held together and functions satisfactorily whereas the rebels have no single government.

One of my greatest concerns for the short to medium term impacts of climate change is the effects that extreme events will have on fragile governments in unstable areas of the world. Climate change did not create the fundamental instability in countries like Syria, and Pakistan – colonialism, religion, and tribal animosities have a long legacy in those countries, and arguably, the paranoid dictatorial regimes in those areas are a rational response to the forces that would otherwise split these countries apart.

Climate change, however, is adding a new dynamic to the game. This is why the US military has identified climate change as a “threat multiplier”.

Går vi lidt længere tilbage i tid finder vi, at det var Sovjetunionens rænkespil helt op til den manipulerende Gorbachov, der lystigt busede på for at få lidt god gedigen jødehad spredt i Mellemøsten og designede intifadaer og flyterror, som man kan læse på Tablet

Stroilov’s book about these documents, many only now translated into English, challenges the conventional wisdom that Western colonialists are to blame for the chaos in the region. All of its major conflicts, he argues, were caused by Soviet expansionism. Terrorism and the rabid anti-Israeli animus of the Arab world were Soviet inspirations. And the revolutions we are seeing now were inevitable, for the Soviet client states were socialist regimes, and sooner or later socialism exhausts economies and thus the patience of the people who live in them.

(…)

,,,Gorbachev thereafter kept it in mind that turning Egypt away from the United States might be feasible. Meanwhile, he worked strenuously to unite the Red Arabs with the aim of expelling the United States completely from the region. In page upon page of these transcripts, we see him striving toward this goal, particularly in his meetings with Hafez Assad:

GORBACHEV. […] The Soviet Union, given the capabilities it has, is also prepared to contribute to the unification of the Arab ranks. Of course, our enemies won’t miss the opportunity to present our honest efforts as “Moscow’s conspiracy,” so we should act accurately and carefully. In any case, you can count on our support. [...] A success of this cause would be a great historic victory with tremendous consequences.

In 1986, as the series of Politburo memos shows, the Syrians proudly reported that they had destroyed the prospect of peace between Israel and Jordan, “wrecked” cooperation between Jordan and the Palestinians, and “effectively blocked” President Ronald Reagan’s peace plan. Gorbachev encouraged them to continue their efforts, lauding Syria’s defense of the “progressive” forces of the Middle East. Gorbachev could rightly claim credit for undermining any prospects for regional peace in the 1980s.

Men kommunister og klimaforandringer har blot løbet åbne døre ind, hvis vi skal tro Assads farfar ifølge Elder of Ziyon

4. The spirit of fanaticism and narrow-mindedness, whose roots are deep in the heart of the Arab Muslims toward all those who are not Muslim, is the spirit that continually feeds the Islamic religion, and therefore there is no hope that the situation will change. If the Mandate is cancelled, the danger of death and destruction will be a threat upon the minorities in Syria, even if the cancellation [of the Mandate] will decree freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Why, even today we see how the Muslim residents of Damascus force the Jews who live under their auspices to sign a document in which they are forbidden to send food to their Jewish brothers who are suffering from the disaster in Palestine [in the days of the great Arab rebellion], the situation of the Jews in Palestine being the strongest and most concrete proof of the importance of the religious problem among the Muslim Arabs toward anyone who does not belong to Islam. Those good Jews, who have brought to the Muslim Arabs civilization and peace, and have spread wealth and prosperity to the land of Palestine, have not hurt anyone and have not taken anything by force, and nevertheless the Muslims have declared holy war against them and have not hesitated to slaughter their children and their women despite the fact that England is in Palestine and France is in Syria. Therefore a black future awaits the Jews and the other minorities if the Mandate is cancelled and Muslim Syria is unified with Muslim Palestine. This union is the ultimate goal of the Muslim Arabs.

Ja, mon ikke. Arabere er, hvad arabere er.

Dalende interesse for klimaet

Diverse — Drokles on September 7, 2013 at 10:04 am

Hver uge kan man se forskellige tegn på at interessen for klimaet daler (og alligevel skriver jeg videre). Et mindretal tror på at mennesket har nogen synderlig indflydelse på klimaet og endnu færre kerer sig om det. Med den dalende interesse for klimaet spirer interessen omvendt for kritik af klimaindustrien. I den ukontroversielle ende kan man starte med den absurde svindel på EU’s  CO2 børs, hvilket man så også gør (Hvem ‘man’? - “Dem”!) På mandag kl. 20:00 sender Danmarks Radio nemlig en sådan dokumentar - lidt overraskende må jeg sige

EU’s første klimakvote blev sat til salg i 2005. Kvoterne skulle reducere CO2-udledningen og dermed redde kloden for den globale opvarmning. Men systemet er brudt sammen og Danmark blev i stedet centrum for én af verdens hurtigst voksende svindelnumre.

Eksperter og Europol vurderer, at statskasserne rundt om i Europa mistede op mod 70 milliarder kroner til hackere og momssvindlere fra hele verden.

Og aldrig før i menneskehedens historie er der udledt så meget CO2, som nu.

Og den udledte CO2 har ingen mærkbar effekt på temperaturen, glemte de vist at tilføje. Troværdigheden udhules også i den industri, der kun lever af at sælge gode intentioner ved at skræmme livet af børn. Og ingen virksomhed er så højt profileret som Al Gore, men som BuzzFeed Politics fortæller så er hans imperium også under afvikling, tynget af manglende interesse og Gore egen idioti

Richard Branson, James Cameron, Ted Turner, Tom Brokaw, and Tommy Lee Jones joined more than 100 other paying guests — Gore’s handpicked best and brightest — on the National Geographic Explorer, an ice-class 367-foot cruise ship, to see “up close and personal” the effects of a warming planet, courtesy of the former vice president’s environmental nonprofit, the Climate Reality Project. Singer Jason Mraz, another passenger aboard Gore’s Antarctic voyage, would later describe the trip on his blog as “a kind of floating symposium, much like the TED Talks series.”

Back in the more populated areas of the world, climate change activists snickered. The trip, and the Climate Reality Project, drew headlines but did little, they said privately, to affect the movement Gore hoped to revolutionize when he founded the group in 2006.

In the years since the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the Nobel Peace Prize that followed made Gore the No. 1 climate change advocate in the world, the activist group he created with his fame has been steadily shrinking, as has its once-lofty mandate: to create a new nonpartisan global movement around climate change.

The numbers, according to a review of the nonprofit’s tax filings, show the change has been severe. In 2009, at its peak, Gore’s group had more than 300 employees, with 40 field offices across 28 states, and a serious war chest: It poured $28 million into advertising and promotion, and paid about $200,000 in lobbying fees at the height of the cap-and-trade energy bill fight on Capitol Hill.

Today, the group has just over 30 people on staff and has abandoned its on-the-ground presence — all of its field offices have since shut down — in favor of a far cheaper digital advocacy plan run out of Washington. Advertising expenses have decreased from the millions to the thousands, and the organization no longer lobbies lawmakers. Donations and grants have declined, too — from $87.4 million in 2008 to $17.6 million in 2011, and many of its high-profile donors have drifted away, one telling BuzzFeed she now sees the group’s initial vision as “very naïve.”

Interessen daler hele vejen rundt som troværdigheden krakelerer. Guardian skriver at en af FN’s klimapanels førende forskere Kevin Tentberth har mistet tilliden til at FN’s klimapanel overhovedet formår at løfte den ærværdige opgave det er grundløst at skræmme folk fra vid og sans

Other expert contributors to the IPCC reports said they believed it was time the panel shifted focus – from production of mega reports to more targeted studies, looking more closely at certain regions, or phenomena.

The IPCC was set up in 1988 to provide the most authoritative report on global climate change, enabling governments to prepare for a future of rising seas, droughts, extreme weather events, and other consequences.

It has delivered its landmark reports every six or seven years since then, relying on the participation of some 1,300 scientists from around the world to arrive at an expert consensus on the pace of climate change, and its effects.

The IPCC shared the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore in 2007. But in 2010, the UN climate panel was forced to admit there was an error in the report on the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers.

The error was in one paragraph in a 900-page report. But it was seized on by those who doubt the science behind climate change, and those who oppose controls on carbon pollution, to try to damage the credibility of the entire IPCC exercise.

Now, as the IPCC puts the finishing touches to the latest report, some of the climate scientists involved argue the mammoth effort of getting hundreds of scientists to review hundreds of journal articles – all on a volunteer basis – would be better put to studying regional impacts of climate change, or specific phenomena.

“I think myself that the IPCC has outgrown its usefulness in the way in which it does things,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Andrew Weaver, a lead IPCC author and a Green party leader who earlier this year was elected to the British Columbia legislature, agreed it was time to shift away from the blockbuster style of reports.

The scientists said the science on the causes of climate change and its global effects was already well-established. Given the rate and extent of climate change, it would be more useful to governments which rely on the IPCC reports to have scientists working on more targeted reports on specific topics, which would be delivered every year or two.

Samme argumentation som fra muslimer og EU propagandister - Systemfejl løses med mere system. Og klimapanelets vigende indflydelse skyldtes ikke en enkelt fejl om Himalayas gletschere, som Guardian bilder sine læsere ind, men den lavine af andre fejl og groteskher som ikke blot selve fejlen, der var gravende, men det skandaløse forsøg på at dække over den, afstedkom. Donna Laframboise var en af de få journalister, der undrede sig over klimapanelets opførsel og hun begyndte at se deres værk efter i sømmene. Hun forklarer her i et interview, hvorfor klimapanelet er en skændsel i sin egen ret

Den sidste nadver

Akademia, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, islam, muhammed, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 7, 2013 at 2:21 am

Forfølgelser af kristne i den muslimske verden nærmest kun blevet dækket af diverse især højreorienterede blogs og som regel og osgå for denne blogs vedkommende mest for at rive venstrefløjen den pointe i næsen at islam er en rædselsfulde religion, at muslimer ikke er “vore dages jøder” og at venstrefløjen er uvidende eller i ond tro, men under alle omstændigheder hyklerisk. Alt sammen ganske sandt og vigtigt, men en samlet fortælling om kristenforfølgelserne er en sjældenhed i den danske offentlighed. Men det forsøger Klaus Wivel at ændre på med bogen Den Sidste Nadver, der just er udkommet. Fra Jyllands-Posten

Noget tyder på, at Villy Søvndal ikke har anden mening med at være udenrigsminister end den at være det. I oktober 2011 spurgte journalisten Klaus Wivel ham i et åbent brev, hvordan han agtede at reagere »på de tusindvis af kristne«, der nu fordrives fra Egypten (og hele den arabiske verden). Den uanfægtede udenrigsminister nedlod sig aldrig til at svare, og den udeblivelse blev anledningen til den foreliggende, oprivende bog.

(…)

I disse år er den arabiske verden et sydende helvede, der opsluger de kristne minoriteter. I de fleste lande har de længe udgjort cirka 10 pct. af befolkningen, hvis ikke mere. Nu er de ca. 4 pct., hvis ikke mindre. De chikaneres, forfølges, fordrives systematisk og udsættes for vold, grusom tortur, voldtægt, overlagte bestialske mord, kidnapninger og pengeafpresninger. Deres huse og kirker vandaliseres og brændes ned til grunden. Myndighederne er passive. Ofte er politiet delagtigt i forbrydelserne. Kun meget undtagelsesvis stilles de skyldige til regnskab. Ikke så sært, at regionens kristne emigrerer til Europa, Canada, USA, Sydamerika og Australien, så at der om 10 år næppe er én eneste tilbage i det område, hvor kristendommen slog rod ca. seks hundrede år før Muhammed. De vil være væk, rejst eller udryddet, som en moderne Endlösung!

Jyllands-Postens anmelder revser dog Wivel for ikke at lægge vægt på det religiøse aspekt, at islam er den rene grusomhed og grusonheder begået af muslimer i flok og flæng er den logiske udløber af islams doktriner.

Og her er lige en nyhed, som jeg ikke har set i danske medier. Fox News skriver at en by på 120.000 indbyggere har været under fuld islamistisk kontrol i flere uger

The Coptic Orthodox priest would only talk to his visitor after hiding from the watchful eyes of the bearded Muslim outside, who sported a pistol bulging from under his robe.

So Father Yoannis moved behind a wall in the charred skeleton of an ancient monastery to describe how it was torched by Islamists and then looted when they took over this southern Egyptian town following the ouster of the country’s president.

“The fire in the monastery burned intermittently for three days. The looting continued for a week. At the end, not a wire or an electric switch is left,” Yoannis told The Associated Press. The monastery’s 1,600-year-old underground chapel was stripped of ancient icons and the ground was dug up on the belief that a treasure was buried there.

“Even the remains of ancient and revered saints were disturbed and thrown around,” he said.

A town of some 120,000 — including 20,000 Christians — Dalga has been outside government control since hard-line supporters of the Islamist Mohammed Morsi drove out police and occupied their station on July 3, the day Egypt’s military chief removed the president in a popularly supported coup. It was part of a wave of attacks in the southern Minya province that targeted Christians, their homes and businesses.

Since then, the radicals have imposed their grip on Dalga, twice driving off attempts by the army to send in armored personnel carriers by showering them with gunfire.

Their hold points to the power of hard-line Islamists in southern Egypt even after Morsi’s removal — and their determination to defy the military-backed leadership that has replaced him.

“We want to listen to the many voices and act accordingly”

Diverse, EU — Drokles on September 6, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Det påstås i en af EU kvalme propagandafilm

Men man kan ikke få sin stemme hørt

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-06-kl-141032

Pointe løftet fra Helt Ud Af EU

Intet klimakonsensus

Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on September 6, 2013 at 1:28 am

Man hører meget om enighed i klimadebatten, konsensus kalder man det med et ord lånt fra den politiske verden, hvor man forhandler sig til et mindeligt resultat. Som ved en finanslov - eller en samarbejdspolitik.

Dr Willie Soon, a distinguished solar physicist, quoted the late scientist-author Michael Crichton, who had said: “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.” He added: “There has been no global warming for almost 17 years. None of the ‘consensus’ computer models predicted that.”

Ja, konsensus er ikke et videnskabeligt ord og de der har taget det i deres mund har ikke vidst hvad videnskab er. Og mange har taget det i deres mund fra klimapampere tilknyttet FN, henover politikere til journalister. Og de har især været glade for at sætte et tal på, nemlig 97%. 97% konsensus om at verden snart vil drukne i kogende vand, 97% konsensus om at flere skatter og afgifter giver et bedre vejr, 97% konsensus om at mennesket kun kan reddes ved at afvikle det frie valg.  De 97% konsensus stammer fra en aldeles uvidenskabelig undersøgelse, hvis pinlighed kun overgås af følgagtigheden.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

The figures have indeed been cooked.

Obama: idiot eller genial?

Arabiske forår, Obama, Politik, USA, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 am

Ezra Klein skriver om Obamas  på Washington Post’s Wonkblog (min fremhævning)

Boxed in by red-line rhetoric and the Sunday show warriors, the Obama administration needed to somehow mobilize the opposition to war in Syria. It did that by “fumbling” the roll-out terribly.

The arguments were lengthy and unclear. The White House expressly admitted that their strikes wouldn’t save Syrian lives or topple Assad or making anything better in any way, and they were instead asking Americans to bomb Syria in order to enforce abstract international norms of warfare. It would be the first military action in American history that wasn’t meant to save lives or win a war but to slightly change the mix of arms a dictator was using to slaughter his population.

All this was helpful in creating opposition. But then Obama turned on a dime and decided to go to Congress at the last minute, making his administration look indecisive and fearful of shouldering the blame for this unpopular intervention, putting the decision in the hands of a body famous for being unable to make decisions, giving the argument for strikes more time to lose support, and giving an American public that opposes intervention in Syria more time and venues to be heard.

And then, after all that, Obama goes to Congress with an absurdly broad force authorization — so broad that it doesn’t specify when it ends, or even really limit which countries can be hit. The force authorization offended even Obama’s allies in Congress, left many questioning his motives, and has now been thrown out by the Senate. Members of Congress and their aides I’ve spoken to remain shocked that Obama chose to come to Congress and then handed them that document.

And on Tuesday, of course, Secretary of State John Kerry stepped before the Senate and, asked, to forswear ground troops, said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table.” He later walked the comments back as “a hypothetical,” but they led the nightly news, and pushed the possibility of escalation further into the discussion.

The Obama administration’s strategy to cool the country on this war without expressly backing away from the president’s red lines has been brilliant, Hill aides say (just look at the polls showing overwhelming opposition!). If they are going to go to war, their efforts to goad Congress into writing a punitively narrow authorization of force that sharply limits any potential for escalation have worked beautifully.

David Trads er derimod af den opfattelse at Obamas latterlige håndtering af sin egen røde streg ikke er et resultat af en pinlig og inkonsistent udenrigspolitik uden indsigt i den virkelige verden, men tværtimod en genial plan, der skal få Assad fra magten

Den reelle årsag til, at Obama i weekenden pludselig tøvede med at angribe Syrien, er, at han alene ved at true med et forestående angreb fik etableret en reel dialog med den russiske præsident Putin. Bag de allermest hermetisk lukkede døre foregår der, spekulerer jeg på, i disse døgn forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland på et meget højt plan om, hvordan man kan løse det syriske problem på en måde, hvor ingen taber ret meget ansigt.

En løsning kunne være, at Putin giver Bashar al-Assad asyl i Rusland; at Obama lover at undlade at angribe Syrien; og at det internationale samfund lover at lade være med at forsøge at retsforfølge den syriske leder.

En anden løsning kunne være, at Putin allerede i weekenden signalerede - præcist som han nu gør i nedenstående Reuters-telegram - at han måske godt kan gå med til et Syrien-angreb, hvis det ellers lykkes at dokumentere bedre end nu, at Assad faktisk beordrede giftgasangrebet.

Hvem havde set den komme? Der findes ikke megen kritik af Obama og hans inkompetence. Mange af de, der buser på for at få Obama til at gå enegang aogbombe et eller andet i et eller andet omfang var de samme der talte om FN spor og ulovlige krige under Bush, der blev kritiseret for at samle en koalition af mere end 40 lande, hvoraf flere var ganske civiliserede.

Marc Morano

Diverse — Drokles on September 3, 2013 at 2:56 am

Hvad skal det nytte?

Arabiske forår, Jihad, Politik, Pressen, islam — Drokles on September 2, 2013 at 12:37 pm

Dersom der i tidligere tid var nogen tendens i folket til at behandle denne sag rent overfladisk, på fantasiens vej, med overspændt æstetisk følelsestilskyndelse, så tror jeg, at det er forbi. Jeg tror, at dette spørgsmål, hvad skal det nytte? dette spørgsmål, der er en hæder for vort folks forstandighed, breder sig mere og mere ud gennem alle lag i befolkningen, og jeg nærer den tro, at den tid ikke er fjern, da ingen ærlig mand eller kvinde her i landet vil tro, at det er forsvarligt, eller vil kunne undgå at se, at det er letsindigt og samvittighedsløst at tage en sag som denne, der for tusinder og atter tusinder af danske familier betyder et bidrag - ikke alene i penge - men i personlig kraft - der føles stort og byrdefuldt, kun alt for stort og byrdefuldt. Med disse ord skal jeg advare mod et engagement i Syrien. Jeg har med disse få bemærkninger ønsket at skaffe plads for dette indtryk, at dersom der her i tinget er venner af islamificeret kaos, folk, for hvem islamificeret kaos er en livssag, så er der også her i tinget fjender af islamificeret kaos, folk, for hvem modstanden mod islamificeret kaos er en livssag.

Vi må gøre noget siger forskellige politikere tanke på, hvem, der får kontrollen over Assads masseødelæggelsesvåben. Ingen ved hva, men måske noget med at bombe forskellige mål. I hvert fald til at starte med. Intet succes kriterium opstilles, intet perspektiv ingen ide om, hvor meget man skal bombe førend Assad har lært lektien. Intet andet end ufordøjet moralisme. Naser Khader svarer  en læser på Facebook, der spørger, hvem der  ”skal overtage magten i Syrien?” skulle Assad falde for presset, - “I hvertfald ikke Assad” er det perspektivrige svar. Det efterlader lidt for meget til fantasien, men meget lidt til det realistiske. Khader og andre eventyrere forestiller sig at danske soldater skal assistere de driftige og virkelystne muslimer med dansk pas man har gjort det ulovligt for at slutte sig til den spirende underskov af Syriske NGO’er der hjælper i folkets kamp mod Assad.

skc3a6rmbillede-2013-09-01-kl-113437

Situationen i Syrien er mere end almindeligt rodet, hvor kun grusomheder ser ud til at binde folkene sammen.

549000_520527131358490_1188608339_n

1209321_563854270348820_378132532_n

SF nåede lige netop at vende på en tallerken og være for et militært engagement i den syriske jungle førend Obama gjorde det samme og syltede sit. Man forstår Obama.

Bl.a.derfor gider danskerne ikke samle ind til Syrien, mens de bekymrer sig stærkt over EU’s trussel mod lakrids piber.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress