Hvorfor Israel?

Diverse — Drokles on April 21, 2018 at 3:50 am

Det spørgsmål stiller Brendan O’Neill i Spiked Online og kommer frem til følgende konklusion

The treatment of Israel as uniquely colonialist, as an exemplar of racism, as the commissioner of the kind of crimes against humanity we thought we had left in the darkest moments of the 20th century, really captures what motors today’s intense fury with Israel above all other nations: it has been turned into a whipping boy for the sins of Western history, a punch-bag for those who feel shame or discomfort with the political and military excesses of their own nations’ pasts and who now register that shame and discomfort by raging against what they view, hyperbolically, as a lingering expression of that past: Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. They heap every horror of the past on to Israel, hence their denunciation of it as ideological, racist, imperialistic, even genocidal – in their eyes, and courtesy of their campaigning, Israel comes to symbolise the crimes of yesteryear. So when 18 Palestinians are killed, it is not simply a tragedy, it is not simply excessive, it is certainly not something that requires serious, nuanced discussion, including about the role of Hamas in organising such protests in order to shore up international sympathy for Palestinian victimhood. No, it is an act that reminds us of the entire history of colonialism and racial chauvinism and of concentration camps and genocide, because this is what Israel now reminds people of; they project their post-colonial guilt and scepticism about the Western project on to this tiny state in the Middle East.

The rage against Israel is actually more therapeutic than political. It is not about seriously addressing the reality of life and conflict in the Middle East, but rather is driven by the narrow needs of Western observers and activists for an entity they can fume against in order to give release to their own sense of historical and political disorientation. But the impact of this therapeutic rage, this almost primal-scream therapy against Israel, is dire. It contributes to the growing conspiratorial view that certain people, you know who they are, have a uniquely disruptive influence on international affairs, political life, and everyday safety and security. ‘It isn’t anti-Semitic to criticise Israel’, observers say, and they are absolutely right. Every nation state must be open to criticism and protest. But if you only criticise Israel, or you criticise Israel disproportionately to every other state, and if your criticism of Israel is loaded with Holocaust imagery and talk of bloodletting, and if you boycott Israel and no other nation, and if you flatter the dark imaginings of the far right and Islamists and conspiracy theorists by fretting over a super powerful Israel Lobby, and if the sight of an Israeli violinist is too much for you to stomach, then, I’m sorry, that has the hallmarks of anti-Semitism.

Imens i Yemen, som også er “a barbaric sea, land and air blockade since 2015 that has resulted in devastating shortages of food and medicine, causing famine and the rampant spread of diseases like cholera

Stemning fra Gaza striben

Diverse — Drokles on April 15, 2018 at 4:24 am

“Despite Israel’s threats of violence” begynder en overskrift i Mondoweiss “Gaza protesters have peaceful dream”. Det er marchen mod Israels grænse, der tænkes på, den march som i sig selv, selv om den skulle have været fredelig, er en afvisning af Israels eksistensberettigelse. “Not only niggers have dreams“, som Dan Park bemærkede

It all started in 2011 with that Facebook post, the dream of a 33-year-old man in Gaza named Ahmed Abu Ratima. Gazing at a tree on the other side of the barbed fence that separates the Strip from the land now known as Israel, Abu Ratima thought, “Why can’t I go and sit under that tree just for a while, like a free bird?”

Ja, hvorfor lige det træ af alle træer i verden? I 2012 besøgte VICE, der ikke ligefrem er konservatismens bannerfører, Gaza, for at se på hvorledes Hamas håndhævede loven seks år efter dens folkevalgte magtovertagelse.

Selv om Vica kolporterer den almindelige historie om de 6-700.000 arabere der i 1948 forlod og blev fordrevet fra Israel - hvoraf der af de overlevende fra dengang, som endte i Gaza, nu kun er lige under 2.000.000 tilbage - så kan man konstatere flere småvigtige detaljer, hvis man vil forstå denne koncentrationslejrs dynamik og bevidne anatomien af israelernes folkemord på palæstinenserne.

Suroosh Alvi og hans medarbejdere rejser ind via den ægyptiske grænse, der på daværende tidspunkt var blevet delvist åbnet fordi daværende præsident Mursi og hans Muslimske Broderskab ønskede et tættere forhold til den palæstinensiske sag imod ‘besættelsesmagten’. Ved grænsen står der hundreder der er desperate for at kommen IND i koncen… Gaza. Suroosh Alvi udtrykker en vis uro ved at skulle interviewe Hamasfolk i deres kontorer af frygt for om Israelske droner skulle smide en hilsen - altså målrettet gengældelse. Gadebilledet i Gaza ligner gadebilledet i et hvilket som helst arabisk land. Hamas nægter nogensinde at anerkende Israel og omtaler bare landet som ‘besættelsen’, hvilket er en permanent krigstilstand. Hamas største problem synes dog at være ungdommens misbrug af alkohol, narko og Tramadol. Det sidste laves af indiske medicinalfirmaer, kontrolleret af jøder og alt sammen smugles ind via de tunneller som især børn bruges til at grave ind til Ægypten.

Og uden at reflekter fortæller Mondoweiss at The situation in Gaza today is at its worst in recent history”

“The streets are full of beggars,” says Hasan Ahmed (who asked that his last name not be used), a member of the coordinating committee for the Great Return March. “Our goal is to put the crises of Palestinians on the table for everyone to see, and we will do so by the gathering of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees close to the border line.”

According to a January report of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor:

  • 97 percent of Gaza water is unfit for human consumption.
  • 45 percent of medicines are absent from the warehouses of the Gaza Ministry of Health, along with 28 percent of needed medical equipment.
  • 50 percent of Palestinian children need psychological counseling.
  • Only 54 percent of requested medical transfers to outside hospitals in 2017 were approved—the lowest since 2006.
  • 44 percent of the adult Gaza population is unemployed. Among youth, it’s 62 percent and among those with disabilities, it’s 90 percent.
  • 65 percent of families live in poverty (95 percent among fishermen) and more than 72 percent don’t have enough food.

I 2006 sagde araberne i Gazastriben altså JA til den permanente krig.

“[A] whole new level of unfairness”

Diverse — Drokles on April 13, 2018 at 2:26 am

Trumps advokat har fået sit kontor og sit hjem ransaget af FBI, da Muellers efterforskning af Trump, tilsyneladende har ført til mistanker om slet spil. Ifølge Cohen var FBI meget høflige, hvilket de ikke var, da de med skarpladte våben, stormede Trumps tidligere rådgiver Paul Manafort midt om natten i dennes hjem, og visiterede dennes kone i sengen. Måske de lave forventningers taknemmelighed?

Alan Dershowitz mente derimod at det essentielle var den trussel, ransagningen af Cohens kontorer udgjorde mod advokaters fortrolige forhold til deres klienter

I deal with clients all the time. I tell them on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct. And now they say, just based on probable cause, even though there was cooperation with Cohen, they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent, and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.’ You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.

Mark Levin mente ”the entire department’s out of control now”. Newt Gingrich mente at det var en politistats metoder og ikke en retsstat og Scott Adams ville af samme årsag blive skuffet over Trump, hvis ikke hele banden blev fyret. Stormy Daniels advokat mente derimod, at Cohen ville blive den første dominobrik, der ville falde og at “history is going to look back upon this day and this is going to be a monumental day when the president on a Thursday refers everyone to his personal attorney, and Monday, that attorney’s offices are raided by the FBI”.

Men det er måske ikke rigtigt, skriver Andrew C McCarthy, der allerede for to uger siden, som han beskedent bemærker, “tried to explain that the Stormy Daniels scandal could be more perilous for Trump than the Russia investigation has been”. Hverken tolkningen af politistatsmetoder eller at Mueller skulle kunne bruge Sormy Daniels sagen til at afpresse Cohen til at vidne imod Trump, selvom de i den sag, som det skal forklares senere, sidder med et stort forklaringsproblem.

Ifølge McCarthy er man meget opmærksomme på de Forfatningsstridige komplikationer, der ligger i at ransage advokatkontorer, der kræver tilladelse fra de øverste lag i Justitsministeriet efter at have afsøgt mindstemiddelpricippet. Og han hæfter sig ved at ransagningen “related to several topics, including a payment to a pornographic film actress” og han minder om at “a federal judge found probable cause that evidence of at least one crime would be uncovered in Cohen’s premise”.

Det er vigtigt for McCarthy at påpege at Mueller ikke selv efterforsker Cohen, men altså har fundet noget snavs af en hvis substans, han ikke kan sidde overhørig. Derfor har han, som led i de forskellige depardementers naturlige samarbejde overdraget sagen til FBI og Statsanklageren for Southern District of New York (SDNY). Hvis SDNY finder noget af relevans for Muellers efterforskning, stakke af rubler, vil de selvfølgelig blive overdraget til ham. McCarthy, der selv har arbejdet for SDNY, har ingen tvivl om at der er vandtætte skotter imellem de forskellige efterforskere.

As I explained last November, when we learned that Mueller had forced an attorney who had represented Manafort to testify against him, there is a so-called crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. If a client’s communications with a lawyer are for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, they lose any claim to confidentiality. Theoretically, then, Trump and Cohen have a legal as well as a factual problem. Legally, if they conspired to execute a payment in violation of campaign laws in order to silence Clifford, their communications in this regard would not be privileged. Factually (if implausibly), both Cohen and Trump claim that the former did not tell the latter about the payment to Clifford; and that Cohen made the payment in his personal capacity, not as Trump’s lawyer. How, then, can they now claim attorney–client privilege in connection with the transaction?

(…) Even if it’s not nearly as consequential as the specter of “collusion” with a hostile foreign power, the porn-star payment undeniably happened. I argued then, and I’m even more convinced now, that “the best argument in Trump’s favor is one that claims mitigation, not innocence.”

Compared with other possible campaign-finance infractions that have been settled without criminal charges, this one — if it is one — is a trifle. And while the underlying behavior is debauched, it happened a decade before Trump was elected. While extramarital, the tryst was consensual by Clifford’s account. (The White House half-heartedly denies it happened.) As for Trump’s fitness for the presidency, the scandal tells us exactly nothing that we didn’t already know about the flawed man that Americans chose to elect.

Det har altså taget at år for Muellers efterforskere, at finde beviser på, at Trumps “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary“. Men McCarthy giver dog Dershowitz, Levin og Gingrich ret i, at det ville se anderledes ud for Hillary Clinton. “Michael Cohen”, skriver McCarthy, “has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now”

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

(…)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Og det er den sørgelig konklusion på en uhæmmet undersøgelse, som Dershowitz fra starten advarede imod, Berias ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen’ diktum.

Klynk fra gode mennesker

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 4:26 am

De gode mennesker vånder sig over at Israel har den frækhed at forsvare deres egne grænser. Indtrængende skal belønnes og ynkes, ikke skydes på. Man reagerer stærkt på udvalgte billeder der viser de forhutlede og fustrerede unge mennesker i deres kamp modpolitistatens overmagt. Tablet Magazine sætter konflikten, hvor mindst 10 terrorister er blevet bekræftet dræbt

Having withdrawn from the strip in 2005, Israel no longer has any territorial claims on Gaza; but Gaza, as this weekend makes painfully clear, still has territorial claims on Israel. In its continuous attacks on their neighbors to the north, and in its most recent efforts to cross into Israel, Hamas has again proven what the organization’s charter so clearly states, namely that its singular goal is the utter and absolute destruction of the Jewish state. It wants all of the land, not peace or coexistence or any other sensible and reasonable goal, which is why any territorial compromise on Israel’s behalf is nothing more than an invitation to the next, even bloodier conflict.

Think that’s Zionist propaganda? Here is the leader of Hamas himself, explaining the point of last week’s protests: The “March of Return,” said Yahya Sinwar, “affirms that our people can’t give up one inch of the land of Palestine. The protests will continue until the Palestinians return to the lands they were expelled from 70 years ago.”

Imens trækker småting overskrifter. Et par israelske soldater jubler højlydt, som de skyder en tilsyneladende ubevæbnet palæstinensisk araber i hovedet. Hvorfor og hvad der er gået forud får man ikke at vide. Det er også lige meget, de barske mænd står under anklage fra de veludhvilede gode mænd, for at have begået vold på deres vegne på en uæstetisk måde.

En palæstinensisk-arabisk journalist filmer i den tætte røg fra de brændende bildæk og bliver ramt i brystet af en israelsk snigskytte. Reporters Without Borders skal ikke bruge flere oplysninger end det til at anklage Israel for at have gjort det med vilje. Forsvarsminister Lieberman hævder den brystskudte journalist styrede en drone ind over grænsen (med et kamera eller en bombe?), mens hæren, IDF, klogeligt vil udtale sig når man er færdige med at undersøge hændelsesforløbet. Det kunne jo være et forståeligt uheld

Ofir Gendelman, a spokesman for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted on his Twitter account last Friday that the protesters burned tires to provide cover for Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who he said “will try to storm the border, infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis.”

For palæstinensernes løgne falder tættere end røgen fra bildækkene.

pallywood-2pallywood-1

In the beginning was the lie

Diverse — Drokles on April 12, 2018 at 3:23 am

Trump gik til valg på sit America first slogan og det er ikke svært at se den indenrigspolitiske interesse i at ægge ham til en krig imod Assads Syrien på grund af en mistanke om regimets brug af giftgas. Tucker Carlson med nogle eftertænksomme ord, midt i hysteriet

“What we do know for sure is that the rationale for going to war was based on lies” skriver Matthias von Hein for Deutche Welle om beslutningen i 2003 om at banke Saddams Irak

Six weeks before the war began, Powell spent 76 minutes influencing international public opinion in favor of war. The core of his speech was that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, that his regime was supporting international terrorism, and that it aimed to build nuclear weapons.

The presentation culminated in a claim, backed up by detailed illustrations, that in order to evade strict controls by UN weapons inspectors Iraq had converted a fleet of trucks into mobile chemical and biological weapons labs. We remember Powell’s speech primarily because all of these claims turned out to be false. In 2005 Powell himself described the speech as a lasting “blot” on his career.

Ray McGovern is a security services veteran. He worked for the CIA for 27 years, and held senior positions within it. In 2003, he and some colleagues from the CIA and other intelligence services founded the organization Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which critically examines US policy. McGovern told DW, “The intelligence was not mistaken; it was fraudulent — and they knew it.” And a significant part of Powell’s presentation was based on intelligence provided by Germany.

Codename ‘Curveball’

In 1999 the Iraqi chemist Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi came to Germany as a refugee. Alerted to his presence, Germany’s foreign intelligence service (the BND) interrogated him. They were hoping for information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Al-Janabi — referred to by his codename, “Curveball” — realized that the more information he provided, the more his status improved. He was given a German passport, money and his own apartment.

Så kan jeg ikke planke mere fra den forudsigelige historie. Min personlige holdning var og er at vi havde og har al mulig grund til at slå til, hvis vi føler os truede på vores eksistens. Og Saddam gjorde alt for at holde Verden i den tro da det gav ham et godt navn i den arabiske gade. Og han havde brugt giftgas i rigelige mængder, både i krigen mod Iran og mod civile kurdere. Han havde også haft store ambitioner om en superkanon og et atomvåbenprogram, begge projekter israelerne stoppede effektivt. Og disse ambitioner var aldrig døde, blot sat på vågeblus under truslen fra amerikanerne.

Men en krig bygget på en løgn er en krig uden formål og en sejr defineres af om man når sit mål. Ergo kan den slags krige ikke vindes selv om man nedkæmper en fjende man har defineret. Man bytter blot et onde ud med et andet, som man endnu ikke kender og ved, hvorledes man skal forholde sig til. Stay out!

Et angreb på retsstaten

Diverse — Drokles on April 6, 2018 at 11:21 am

Det er ikke så tit man læser noget nyt om det Trump-russisk samarbejde. Men i Townhall skriver Byron York, at efterforskningen af Trumps stab, i sig selv er et angreb på retsstaten i og med at brudene på lovens principper begås af den aller øverste top af politifolk, embedsmænd og politikere. Først og fremmest, skriver York, er der brugen af the Logan Act, en lov fra 1799, der gør det forbudt for andre end Præsidenten af føre udenrigspolitik. Men the Logan Act strider samtidig mod Forfatningens forståelse af borgernes frihed og er derfor kun forsøgt taget i brug to gange i løbet af første halvdel af 1800 tallet. Ingen tager den seriøst og den teoretiske mulighed for en juridisk argumentation for, at Trump skulle have overtrådt den, er for længst knust under vægten af præcedens.

Ikke desto mindre opviglede Demokraterne en stemning, der i forvejen var ond med voldelige overfald på Trumps tilhængere, om at Trump forbrød sig imod USA ved at føre udenrigspolitik i samarbejde med russerne bag ryggen på den siddende præsident. Og derfor pressede de på for, at justitsministeriet skulle indlede en efterforskning. Ingen eksperter tog det for andet end “political posturing”, men det var der andre der gjorde

[U]nbeknownst to the public, the Obama Justice Department was using the Logan Act as a pretext to take action against the incoming administration.

When intelligence intercepts picked up Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, talking to the Russian ambassador in late December, the Obama Justice Department saw that as a possible violation of the Logan Act. (It wasn’t; many foreign policy experts saw nothing wrong with that.)

Nevertheless, four days into the Trump administration, Sally Yates, the Obama holdover leading the Justice Department, sent agents to the White House to question Flynn, ostensibly on the suspicion that he might have violated the Logan Act.

It was that interview that ultimately resulted in Flynn pleading guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.

The bottom line is, the Flynn saga, which is at the heart of the Trump-Russia investigation, appears to have hinged on a trumped-up suspicion that a new administration had broken a centuries-old law that has never been prosecuted before — when, in fact, the new administration’s real transgression was to make clear it would throw away many of its predecessor’s policies.

Derefter er der FBIs brug af den uvederhæftige rapport, Hillary Clintons valgkamps maskine bestilte hos den engelske tidligere efterretningsofficer Christoffer Steele, til at opnå dommerkendelser til at aflytte et par af Trumps medarbejdere (og alle de kommunikerede med, hvilket vil sige de fleste af Trumps medarbejdere). På daværende FBI direktør Jim Comeys første møde med Trump, inden Trumps indsættelse, informerede han Trump om, at FBI var i besiddelse af Steeles rapport og hvad den i grove træk indholdt. Det er velkendt, men jeg har aldrig tænkt over implikationerne af dette møde

Imagine that. The very first time the incoming president met the FBI director face-to-face, the FBI’s message was: We know about you and those hookers in Moscow.

In their new book “Russian Roulette,” authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn report Trump thought the FBI was blackmailing him:

“Trump had seen this sort of thing before,” they write. “Certainly, his old mentor Roy Cohn — the notorious fixer for mobsters and crooked pols — knew how this worked. So too did Comey’s famous predecessor J. Edgar Hoover, who had quietly let it be known to politicians and celebrities that he possessed information that could destroy their careers in a New York minute.”

The intel chiefs’ briefing of Trump soon leaked to the media. And the fact that top officials had seen fit to tell the incoming president about the dossier made it a legitimate news story. Within hours, Buzzfeed published the entire dossier on the internet.

Så toppen af lov og orden bruger en dubiøs lov og en uvederhæftig rapport til at efterforske, aflytte og offentligt tilsvine den indkomne præsident. Det kan godt være at den tidligere så glimrende Jonah Goldberg forkaster dette som endnu en konspirationsteori, men det er der ikke tale om. Der er tale om et miljøs selvopfattelse, hvor den enes overtrædelse af god skik retfærdiggør den andens og gradvist og umærkbart forandres arbejdskulturen, hvor de betroede embeder. “If there is such a thing as a dangerous “deep state” of elite but unelected federal officials who feel that they are untouchable and unaccountable, then John Brennan is the poster boy” skriver Victor Davis Hanson i National Review

On March 17, former CIA director John Brennan tweeted about the current president of the United States: “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. . . . America will triumph over you.”

That outburst from the former head of the world’s premier spy agency seemed a near threat to a sitting president, and former U.N. ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that it probably was: “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

Brennem, der skulle have lækket Steeles rapport til et Demokratisk medlem af Senatet, beskrives som en politisk opportunist og vendekåbe, der manøvrerer i et betændt system.

Former national-security adviser Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi tragedy, the nature of the Bowe Bergdahl/Guantanamo detainee exchange, the presence of chemical weapons in Syria, and her role in unmasking the identities of surveilled Americans.

Andrew McCabe, recently fired from his job as FBI deputy director, openly admitted to lying to investigators, claiming he was “confused and distracted.” McCabe had said that he was not a source for background leaks about the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. He wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that “some of my answers were not fully accurate . . .”

Former FBI director James Comey likely lied about not drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing in her email scandal before interviewing her.

Comey misled a FISA court by not providing the entire truth about the Steele dossier. He falsely assured the president that he was not under investigation while likely leaking to others that Trump was, in fact, under investigation.

Former director of national intelligence James Clapper lied under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he said that the National Security Agency did not collect data on American citizens. When caught in the lie, Clapper claimed that he had given the “least untruthful” answer to the committee that he could publicly provide.

In the past, Clapper had also misled the country about the “secular” nature of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Og ikke en af dem, er holdt ansvarlig, bemærker Hanson.

Morten Østergaards brune underbevidsthed

Diverse — Drokles on April 3, 2018 at 12:21 pm

Det er ikke meget danske medier beskæftiger sig med urolighederne ved Israels grænse. 17 palæstinensere har ellers allerede fået som fortjent om endnu flere er sårede. Således nøgternt indledes en artikel i Arab News(!) under overskriften “Israel threatens to expand response”.

Israel will target “terror organizations” in Gaza if violence along the territory’s border with Israel drags on, the chief military spokesman warned Saturday, a day after thousands of Palestinians staged protests near the border fence.

Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the chief army spokesman, denied allegations of excessive use of force, saying those killed by Israeli troops were men between the ages of 18 and 30 who were involved in violence and belonged to militant factions.

He alleged Gaza health officials exaggerated the number of those wounded, and that several dozen at most were injured by live fire while the rest were merely shaken up by tear gas and other riot dispersal means. Det er altså Israels der svarer igen og Israels synspunkt, der danner det første indtryk for resten af historien.

Tidligere formand for Sinn Fein, kaldte det et “calculated slaughter by Israeli military snipers of unarmed Palestinian protesters” og krævede israelske diplomater udvist fra Irland. Og i samme radikale dur, skrev Morten Østergaard på sin Facebook side

Skarpe skud mod varslet demonstration? Det er jo det rene vanvid. Mere end 700 demonstranter såret af de israelske patroner. Verdenssamfundet må fordømme og kræve fuld undersøgelse, så de ansvarlige kan stilles til regnskab.

Israel må og skal acceptere folkeretten og menneskeretten. I Gaza gør man hverken det ene eller det andet. Her skyder man med skarpt mod demonstranter. Ufatteligt.

“Det er selvfølgelig en fremmed tanke for en radikaler, at se et land forsvare sine grænser” skrev en Peter Andreas Fog. Men østergaard lod sig ikke anfægte og demonstrerede istedet sin indsigt i striden mellem israelerne og deres muslimske bødler in spe

skc3a6rmbillede-2018-04-03-kl-113856

Flere forsøgte at forklare at Israel rent faktisk ikke har besat Gaza, der er omstridt land, da de rykkede ud i 2007, men en jævnlig skylle af missiler fra tid til anden som resultat. Andre at det ikke var en fredelig demonstration, men en koreograferet aktion i flere led, hvor nogle agerede fredelige til ære for fotograferne, mens andre, bevæbnede med skydevåben, forsøgte at engagere israelske sikkerstyrker til kamp og i den situation var der igen andre, der stillede deres, eller nogle andres?, børn i forreste linie kastende sten og afbrændende bildæk, som det er opstandskutyme på de kanter. alt sammen for at fremprovokere så meget balladen og ulykke over sig selv at man kunne paradere offergørelsen for en verden altid mere end villig til at tro det værste, når der er jøder i ligningen.

At det var et regulært stormløb mod Israels grænse understøttedes også af af at, som det blev påpeget af flere, der ikke er ytrings- of forsamlingsfrihed i Gaza, altså en Hamas aktion mod Israel. “Hvis man som politiker vil tages alvorligt, burde man så ikke sætte sig ind i sagerne i stedet for at køre på automatreaktionerne?” spurgte en Morten Margolinsky Østergaard med den implikation, at Østergaards automatreaktion kommer fra et mere brunt sted i hans underbevidsthed.

Zuckers

Diverse — Drokles on April 2, 2018 at 8:57 am

“Suspenderet direktør afslører flere møder med Trump” hed en overskrift på TV2, “Whistleblower: Selskab stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump” hed en overskrift på Danmarks Radio, der snart bliver en ægte statskanal, Information skrev “Stjæler 50 millioner profiler på Facebook for at hjælpe Trump”, Finans Tech skrev “Historisk datatyveri: Oplysninger fra 50 mio. Facebook-brugere hjalp Donald Trump til sejr”, Politiken “Whistleblower: Kontroversielt analysefirma har misbrugt data fra 50 millioner Facebook-brugere for at hjælpe Trump til sejr” og Ekstra Bladet præsenterede enddog end opbyggelig morale og et offer med overskriften “Hans metoder hjalp Trump: Nu har han kostet Zuckerberg 40 milliarder”osv

Det var det første danskerne lærte om selskabet ved at præsentere det sammen med hvad man allerede havde lært danskerne om, hvad de skulle vide om Trump. Fra valgkamp til sociale medier, alle er tabere i kontakten med Trump. Men nogle dage senere kunne man på CBS læse

The Trump campaign never used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data’s reporting — principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value. The profiling approach utilized by Cambridge Analytica allowed it to predict the voting likelihoods of individual people based on personality, the firm claimed.

Facebook announced on Friday that the firm — which is partly owned by billionaire donor Robert Mercer and which was paid $5.9 million by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — has been suspended for violating the social media company’s standards and practices.

In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn’t share its data.

The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump’s digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica’s, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump’s campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC.

Sandheden var at Facebook, med sin forkærlighed for identitetspolitik, i stedet hjalp Hillary Clinton i valgkampen, som de, sammen med andre sociale medier, generelt bare bekæmper konservative stemmer, eller statsdissidenter i fremmede lande

Så, Trump benyttede ikke stjålen information fra Facebook om Facebooks brugere. Men, viser det sig, Facebook levere derimod helt gratis deres information om deres brugere til Hillary Clintons kampagne, så de kunne påvirke vælgerne mere målrettet.

Monokultur kører på WordPress