The Guardian: Et eksempel på islam/venstrefløjs-konvergensen

Fra David Thompsons blog - en artikel om venstredrejede elementers kollaboration med ekstreme muslimer ved den venstredrejede engelske avis The Guardian, nærmere The Guardians given en platform for Det Muslimske Broderskab. En lille smagsprøve fra artiklen:

In January, the Egyptian weekly Roz Al-Yusouf invited Ragab Hilal Hamida, a Brotherhood MP and former member of the jihadist group Jama'at al-Takfir Wa al-Hijra, to clarify earlier comments expressing support for bin Laden. Hamida promptly obliged: “'Terrorism' is not a curse when given its true [religious] meaning. From my point of view, bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists... I support all their activities.” When asked if such statements might reflect badly on the public perception of Islam, Hamida replied, “Islam does not need improvement of its image.”

The Guardian’s comment editor, Seumas Milne, is apparently unfamiliar with the Brotherhood’s less conciliatory statements to non-Western journalists, including the group’s ambitions for “the widespread implementation of Islam as a way of life; no longer to be sidelined as merely a religion.” Nor, it seems, is Milne aware that the Egyptian Brotherhood’s own website directs young Muslims to a website for children that celebrates jihad, racism and homicidal ‘martyrdom’, albeit with child-friendly cartoons.

It isn’t clear why Milne continues to give a platform to the Brotherhood and its affiliates. Like many other refugees from the Communist Party of Great Britain, Milne may be vicariously titillated by the revolutionary intent of Islamic fundamentalism. Though one has to wonder how contempt for pluralism and free speech along with the theological mandate of arbitrary murder have become such obvious causes for a “progressive” newspaper. Granted, the Brotherhood shares with much of the left a hatred of U.S. ‘imperialism’, which is, allegedly, the cause of all evil in the world. Though, again, I’m not sure how these anti-imperial credentials sit with the slogan that still adorns the Brotherhood’s literature and website: “Islam will dominate the world.”

Hvordan et land lades i stikken

Den amerikanske venstrefløjs forsøg på at trække de amerikanske tropper i Irak ud fortsætter, og USA står måske over for at lade endnu et land i stikken. Sidste gang det lykkedes for dem var da de kvalte Syd-Vietnams forsøg på at standse det kommunistiske diktatur Nord-Vietnam´s invasion i 1975 ved at afskære al hjælp til landet. Efterfølgende mistede et sted mellem to og fem millioner mennesker livet.

Selv om den følgende artikel af James Webb er 10 år gammel giver den et godt billede af situationen dengang, og prikker huller på en del myter, både amerikanere og danskere stadig tror på:

It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect it’s hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated people—most of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle class—could have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late ’60s and early ’70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus.

After President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, that fall’s congressional elections brought 76 new Democrats to the House, and eight to the Senate. A preponderance of these freshmen had run on McGovernesque platforms. Many had been viewed as weak candidates before Nixon’s resignation, and some were glaringly unqualified, such as then-26-year-old Tom Downey of New York, who had never really held a job in his life and was still living at home with his mother.

This so-called Watergate Congress rode into town with an overriding mission that had become the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. Make no mistake—this was not the cry of a few years earlier to stop young Americans from dying. It had been two years since the last American soldiers left Vietnam, and fully four years since the last serious American casualty calls there.

For reasons that escape historical justification, even after America’s military withdrawal the Left continued to try to bring down the incipient South Vietnamese democracy. Future White House aide Harold Ickes and others at "Project Pursestrings"—assisted at one point by an ambitious young Bill Clinton—worked to cut off all congressional funding intended to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves. The Indochina Peace Coalition, run by David Dellinger and headlined by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, coordinated closely with Hanoi throughout 1973 and 1974, and barnstormed across America’s campuses, rallying students to the supposed evils of the South Vietnamese government. Congressional allies repeatedly added amendments to spending bills to end U.S. support of Vietnamese anti-Communists, precluding even air strikes to help South Vietnamese soldiers under attack by North Vietnamese units that were assisted by Soviet-bloc forces.

Then in early 1975 the Watergate Congress dealt non-Communist Indochina the final blow. The new Congress icily resisted President Gerald Ford’s January request for additional military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. This appropriation would have provided the beleaguered Cambodian and South Vietnamese militaries with ammunition, spare parts, and tactical weapons needed to continue their own defense. Despite the fact that the 1973 Paris Peace Accords called specifically for "unlimited military replacement aid" for South Vietnam, by March the House Democratic Caucus voted overwhelmingly, 189-49, against any additional military assistance to Vietnam or Cambodia.

The rhetoric of the antiwar Left during these debates was filled with condemnation of America’s war-torn allies, and promises of a better life for them under the Communism that was sure to follow. Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that "calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word.... The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Tom Downey, having become a foreign policy expert in the two months since being freed from his mother’s apron strings, pooh-poohed the coming Cambodian holocaust that would kill more than one-third of the country’s population, saying, "The administration has warned that if we leave there will be a bloodbath. But to warn of a new bloodbath is no justification for extending the current bloodbath."

On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew—the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany—and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.

As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: "I had no ammunition." "I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day." "I had nothing to give my soldiers." "I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help."

The reaction in the United States to this debacle defines two distinct camps that continue to be identifiable in many of the issues we face today. For most of those who fought in Vietnam, and for their families, friends, and political compatriots, this was a dark and deeply depressing month. The faces we saw running in terror from the North Vietnamese assault were real and familiar, not simply video images. The bodies that fell like spinning snowflakes toward cruel deaths after having clung hopelessly to the outer parts of departing helicopters and aircraft may have been people we knew or tried to help. Even for those who had lost their faith in America’s ability to defeat the Communists, this was not the way it was supposed to end.

For those who had evaded the war and come of age believing our country was somehow evil, even as they romanticized the intentions of the Communists, these few weeks brought denials of their own responsibility in the debacle, armchair criticisms of the South Vietnamese military, or open celebrations. At the Georgetown University Law Center where I was a student, the North’s blatant discarding of the promises of peace and elections contained in the 1973 Paris Accords, followed by the rumbling of North Vietnamese tanks through the streets of Saigon, was treated by many as a cause for actual rejoicing.

Denial is rampant in 1997, but the truth is this end result was the very goal of the antiwar movement’s continuing efforts in the years after American withdrawal. George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn’s "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don’t understand is that I didn’t want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.

There is perhaps no greater testimony to the celebratory atmosphere that surrounded the Communist victory in Vietnam than the 1975 Academy Awards, which took place on April 8, just three weeks before the South’s final surrender. The award for Best Feature Documentary went to the film Hearts and Minds, a vicious piece of propaganda that assailed American cultural values as well as our effort to assist South Vietnam’s struggle for democracy. The producers, Peter Davis and Bert Schneider [who plays a role in David Horowitz’s story—see page 31], jointly accepted the Oscar. Schneider was frank in his support of the Communists. As he stepped to the mike he commented that "It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated." Then came one of the most stunning—if intentionally forgotten—moments in Hollywood history. As a struggling country many Americans had paid blood and tears to try to preserve was disappearing beneath a tank onslaught, Schneider pulled out a telegram from our enemy, the Vietnamese Communist delegation in Paris, and read aloud its congratulations to his film. Without hesitating, Hollywood’s most powerful people rewarded Schneider’s reading of the telegram with a standing ovation.

Those of us who either fought in Vietnam or supported our efforts there look at this 1975 "movie moment" with unforgetting and unmitigated amazement. Who were these people who so energetically poisoned the rest of the world’s view of us? How had they turned so virulently against their own countrymen? How could they stand and applaud the victory of a Communist enemy who had taken 58,000 American lives and crushed a struggling, pro-democratic ally? Could they and the rest of us be said to be living in the same country anymore?

Not a peep was heard then, or since, from Hollywood regarding the people who disappeared behind Vietnam’s bamboo curtain. No one has ever mentioned the concentration camps into which a million South Vietnamese soldiers were sent; 56,000 to die, 250,000 to stay for more than six years, and some for as long as 18. No one criticized the forced relocations, the corruption, or the continuing police state. More to the point, with the exception of the well-intentioned but artistically weak Hamburger Hill, one searches in vain for a single major film since that time that has portrayed American soldiers in Vietnam with dignity and in a true context. ...

Among everyday Americans, attitudes during this troubled time were much healthier. Behind the media filtering and distortion on Vietnam, the fact is that our citizenry agreed far more consistently with those of us who fought than with those who undermined our fight. This was especially true, interestingly, among the young Americans now portrayed as having rebelled against the war.

As reported in Public Opinion, Gallup surveys from 1966 to the end of U.S. involvement show that younger Americans actually supported the Vietnam war longer than any other age group. Even by January of 1973, when 68 percent of Americans over the age of 50 believed it had been a mistake to send troops to Vietnam, only 49 percent of those between 25 and 29 agreed. These findings that the youth cohort as a whole was distinctly unradical were buttressed by 1972 election results—where 18- to 29-year-olds preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern by 52 to 46 percent.

Similarly, despite persistent allegations to the contrary by former protesters who now dominate media and academia, the 1970 invasion of Cambodia—which caused widespread campus demonstrations, including a riot that led to four deaths at Kent State University—was strongly supported by the public. According to Harris surveys, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed the Cambodian invasion was justified. A majority in that same May 1970 survey supported an immediate resumption of bombings in North Vietnam, a complete repudiation of the antiwar movement. ...

Vietnam veterans, though persistently maligned in film, news reports, and classrooms as unwilling, unsuccessful soldiers, have been well thought of by average Americans. In the most comprehensive study ever done on Vietnam vets (Harris Survey, 1980, commissioned by the Veterans Administration), 73 percent of the general public and 89 percent of Vietnam veterans agreed with the statement that "The trouble in Vietnam was that our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win." Seventy percent of those who fought in Vietnam disagreed with the statement "It is shameful what my country did to the Vietnamese people." Fully 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country, and 74 percent said they had enjoyed their time in the military. Moreover, 71 percent of those who expressed an opinion indicated that they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing the end result and the ridicule that would be heaped on them when they returned. ...

Contrary to persistent mythology, two-thirds of those who served during Vietnam were volunteers rather than draftees, and 77 percent of those who died were volunteers. Of those who died, 86 percent were Caucasian, 12.5 percent were African-American, and 1.2 percent were from other races. The common claim that it was minorities and the poor who were left to do the dirty work of military service in Vietnam is false. The main imbalance in the war was simply that the privileged avoided their obligations, and have persisted since that time in demeaning the experience in order to protect themselves from the judgment of history. ...

What an eerie feeling it must have been for those who staked the journey of their youth on the idea that their own country was an evil force, to have watched their naiveté unravel in the years following 1975. How sobering it must have been for those who allowed themselves to move beyond their natural denial, to observe the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese fleeing the "pure flame of the revolution" on rickety boats that gave them a 50 percent chance of death at sea, or to see television pictures of thousands of Cambodian skulls lying in open fields, part of the millions killed by Communist "liberators." How hollow the memories of drug-drenched and sex-enshrined antiwar rallies must be; how false the music that beatified their supposedly noble dissent.

I disse dage lægger den amerikanske venstrefløj igen an til at lade et land i stikken. Sidste gang det lykkedes for dem kostede det millioner af menneskeliv.

Islamisk hykleri i Jerusalem

For tiden hidser araberne i palæstina sig op over, at Israel prøver at genopføre en adgangs-rampe til Tempelbjerget, det helligste sted i verden for jøderne. Problemet er, at muslimerne under den muslimske besættelse af Israel 632-1918 (med en kortvarig befrielse takket være kristne tropper i korstogstiden) byggede to moskéer på Tempelbjerget og sagde, at nu var det altså muslimernes tredje-helligste sted, og at det havde jøderne bare at respektere.


Læg dertil muslimske konspirations-teorier om, at jøderne med arbejdet på rampen prøvet at ødelægge de muslimske moskeer, og man har den nuværende situation. Der er imidlertid et twist til historien:


What the Palestinians fear is that the Israelis will treat Moslem "holy places" in the same manner that the Ishmaelites treat Jewish holy sites. As a reminder, I bring you Joseph's Tomb, located in the West Bank town of Shechem. Joseph died in Egypt, before the Exodus; some 3500 years ago. His body was carried all the way from Egypt in order to be buried in the Holy Land. Over the past 3000 years, his grave has been a landmark in Israel. Jews have traveled from the four corners of the earth to say a prayer at this holy place.


In October 2000, as part of the Oslo Accords, the city of Shechem was turned over to the Palestinian Authority. The Accords stated that until a final agreement was reached, Joseph's Tomb was to remain under Israeli control. That wasn't good enough for the Pals who invaded and destroyed the holy site. The heartbreaking pictures follow below.


This is an example of Islamic respect for holy places. Not one Arab leader or country condemned this behavior. But then again, you wouldn't expect them to. This is Islam. Religion of the damned.


Et af billederne ved linket:

Nyt lys kastet på terror-mord på dansker

New York Daily News via LGF:

Ali Abu Kamal's relatives say they are tired of lying about why the Palestinian opened fire on the observation deck of Empire State Building, killing a tourist and injuring six other people before committing suicide.

Kamal's widow insisted after the shooting spree that the attack was not politically motivated. She said that her husband had become suicidal after losing $300,000 in a business venture.

But in a stunning admission, Kamal's 48-year-old daughter Linda told the Daily News that her dad wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel - and revealed her mom's 1997 account was a cover story crafted by the Palestinian Authority.

"A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel," she told The News on Friday. "We didn't know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do."

But three days after the shootings, Kamal's family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said.

"When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us," she said. "His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis."

She said the family became certain that he carried out the attack for political reasons after reading his diary.

"He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message," said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

She said her mom burned the diary, fearing that it would cause the family trouble.

Artiklen nævner det ikke, men den dræbte "turist" var danskeren Christoffer Burmeister. Burmeister var på toppen af Empire State Building for at fejre at han og hans dansk-amerikanske band Bushpilots stod lige foran deres gennembrud i USA. Istedet skød og dræbte terroristen Christoffer Burmeister, og efterlod hans bedste ven Matthew Gross hjerneskadet for livet.

Christoffer efterlod sig en gravid kone. Bushpilots forsøgte et come-back uden ham, men gik i opløsning. Bassistens kæreste så sig tvunget til at abortere deres barn. Halvandet år efter kollapsede han på Strøget.

Alt sammen fordi en muslimsk araber syntes, han skulle "hævne sig på USA".

Den Hemmelige Krig - Klip for Klip

JyllandsPosten har gjort sig den ulejlighed at få en journalist med erfaring fra DR-dokumentar´s dunkle baglokaler til at gennemgå "dokumentaren" Den Hemmelige Krig klip for klip. Det er der kommet en artig artikel ud af. I får starten:

"Den hemmelige krig" er ikke en journalistisk dokumentarfilm i klassisk forstand. Den blander undersøgende journalistik med effekter, hentet fra filmens verden.

Sammenstødet mellem to genrer illustreres af, at filmkonsulent Dola Bonfils fra Det Danske Filminsitut valgte at støtte filmen med knapt 1,2 mio. kr. på grund af dens "kunstneriske værdi", mens kanalchef på DR2, Gitte Rabøl, indstillede filmen til journalisternes Cavling-pris som et fremragende eksempel på undersøgende journalistik.

"I DR begyndte blandingsformen omkring 2002, og den skabte voldsomme diskussioner," fortæller Erik Valeur. ...

"Den filmiske form er jo fin nok, hvis man havde brugt den på en spændende, men ukontroversiel historie om danske jægersoldaters indsats i Afghanistan. Problemet opstår, når der er flere synsvinkler, som der nødvendigvis er i undersøgende journalistik. I "Den hemmelige krig" bruger Christoffer Guldbrandsen de filmiske virkemidler til at banke én synsvinkel igennem, i stedet for at stille de modstridende synspunkter op mod hinanden. Og der er skruet ekstremt meget på de filmiske knapper, for at få det til at lykkes. Resultatet er blevet semijournalistik. Man har solgt meget ud af de klassiske journalistiske og dokumentariske principper, for at få plads til de filmiske effekter, hvis man skal sige det pænt," siger Erik Valeur. ...

På paletten af virkemidler er ifølge Erik Valeur bl.a.:

Flag på soldaterskulder - vises igen og igen. Vi ved ikke hvem soldaten er, hvor han befinder sig, eller hvornår. Formålet er at forbinde danske soldater til alt, hvad vi ser.

Fly der lander og letter - formålet er primært at forbinde Kandahar-lejeren, hvor de danske soldater var, til Guantanamo-basen på Cuba, der bruges som symbolet på USA's overtrædelse af Geneve-konventionerne. Det er et stort problem for Guldbrandsens historie, at ingen af de 34 afghanere, som danske soldater bevisligt tog til fange, endte på Guantanamo.

Fanger der ydmyges, får hætter over hovedet, knæler i støvet - skal linke til mishandling og tortur.

Stillbillede af Jægerkorpsets tidligere chef Frank Lissner og statsminister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, hvor de smiler lidt fjoget, bruges igen og igen. Fortæller seerne, at de to griner og skjuler sandheden.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen i Folketinget - vises talrige gange. Det er skurkens benægtelse af sandheden - krydsklippes med scener, som tilsyneladende dokumenterer noget afslørende.

Mørke billeder kontra lyse billeder. De "skyldige" vises i mørke, rystede, tågede, kornede billeder. Kritikerne, som er filmens helte, optræder i lyse, rolige billeder, naturlige kameravinkler og hyggelige omgivelser. Det taler til seerens mellemgulv: Når billederne er mørke ved du, at du er i skurkeområdet. I de lyse billeder sidder du over for en, som du hygger dig med.

Kameravinkel skråt nede fra - bruges kun én gang, i interview med forsvarsminister Søren Gade - får enhver til at ligne et skurkagtigt magtmenneske.

Lynzoom ud og ind på ansigter - bruges på nogle af filmens "skurke", Anders Fogh Rasmussen og Søren Gade.

Slow - bruges på andre af filmens skurke, forsvarschef Jesper Helsø og Forsvarskommandoens tidligere pressechef, H.C. Mathiesen.

Dramatisk/ildevarslende musik - skal understrege pointer ved at påvirke seerens mellemgulv.

Faktisk er det eneste virkemiddel, der er udeladt at interviewe folk på baggrund af persienner for at skabe associationer til fængslet/kriminalitet. Et par smagsprøver fra gennemgangen af filmen klip for klip:

0:00 - 4:00: Indledning og beslutningen i Folketinget.

EV: "Her bliver Anders Fogh puttet i shakeren. Masser af klip med ham i mørke, rystede, hoppende, kornede billeder. Kameraet farer ind og ud på hans ansigt. Sådan er det jo ikke optaget - det er lavet bagefter. Tre-fire gange ser vi ham bevæge sig væk fra kameraet med ryggen til - signalerer, at han vender ryggen til filmens sandhed."

1:00:
EV: "Vi ser den første af mange "skyldige bygninger" - en klassisk ingrediens, hvor en mørk bygning tårner sig truende op, her Statsministeriet.

Flere mørke, ekstremt urolige billeder af Anders Fogh, med dyster musik: Vi er i filmens skurkeområde." ...

2:20:
EV: Forteksterne begynder, og vi ser en blå baggrund med mystiske tegn på. Klip til Anders Fogh Rasmussens nytårstale om krigen mod terror.

3:00:
Tegningerne på den blå baggrund bliver tydelige: De skildrer torturscener. Overblænding til Anders Fogh, der holder nytårstale. Han taler om den forestående Afghanistan-mission og de værdier, der skal forsvares i krigen mod terror, mens vi vender tilbage til en tegning af en hængt mand.

EV: "De to ting har intet med hinanden at gøre, tegningerne forklares aldrig, de rummer ingen udsagt påstand - men de bruges til at dementere statsministerens idealistiske udtalelser. Det er elegant lavet, men virkelig strengt - og lidt barnagtigt." ...

7:05: Guantanamo og danskerne
Speakeren fortæller, at mens den danske tolk arbejder i lejren, bliver fanger løbende sat på transportfly og sendt ud af Afghanistan. Vi ser stillbillede af lænkede fanger med hætter over hovedet, om bord på et fly. Klip til fly. Klip til USA's præsident George Bush, som taler om "en ny type fjende, og vi tilpasser vores tankegang til den nye type fjende". Speakeren: "USA beslutter, at fangerne ikke længere skal være beskyttet at Geneve-konventionerne. De kan nu tilbageholdes på ubestemt tid, udsættes for umenneskelige afhøringsmetoder, og dømmes til døden."

EV: "Guldbrandsen har nu linket flyene til bedrag og død, og linket Kandahar til Guantanamo. Det er vigtigt, for ellers mangler halvdelen af hans historie. Jeg ville have forsøgt at dokumentere, at Danmark havde ansvar for, at fanger havnede i Guantanamo, men Guldbrandsen bruger de filmiske virkemidler i stedet." ...

10:55: Tolken
Lyden af Guldbrandsen, som over telefon interviewer vicegeneralauditør Niels Christiansen, som har undersøgt den danske tolks påstande om mishandling af fanger i Kandahar-lejren. Undersøgelsen konkluderede, at påstandene ikke kunne bevises.

EV: "Imens panorerer billedet hen over mørke bygninger og nøgne trætoppe, som spærrer for den blå himmel. Det er truende og dystert."

11:45:
Interview med John Sifton fra Human Rights Watch, som har undersøgt klager over mishandling i bl.a. Kandahar-lejren.

EV: "Her ses kontrasten mellem filmens helte og skurke. Sifton hører til de gode. Han er filmet i lyse omgivelser, hvor han taler sin sag. Kameraet zoomer ind på hans mund flere gange, mens han bl.a. siger at fangerne blev "klædt nøgne" og "hængt op i loftet" - det svarer til at man sætter noget i kursiv i en tekst, for at understrege det."

"Dokumentaren" kan stadig ses online på DR´s hjemmeside her. Se den selv, og sammenhold med Erik Valeurs gennemgang her.

Ligestilling, nu også i islamiske lande. Og måske Danmark

I vesten har vi i årtier været besat af ligestilling, så længe den kun gennemføres på mænds bekostning. For nogle år siden gennemførte Norge således en lov, der fastsatte kvoter for hvad den mindste anddel af kvinder kan være.

I Iran har man taget ved lære, og har nu tænkt sig lige så hårdnakket at gå til kamp mod kønsfascismen. Hvor det i Norge dog kun går ud over mænd, der må fyres i massevis for at give plads til kvinder i bestyrelserne, går det i Iran den anden vej. Kvinderne dominerer nemlig på universiteterne, og det skal der gøres noget ved:

The increasing number of women in Iranian universities is worrying Iran's authorities and parliament is discussing a draft law to limit access to female students. Today, 65 percent of university students in Iran are women. The MPs with the ultra conservative Osulgarayan (loyal to principles) political faction of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejadhas announced it will soon present the bill to "rebalance the university's population," claiming that the large number of women attending secondary education is undermining Iranian society.

Osulgarayan MPs in fact claim that the rise of women graduates has contributed to raise the number of divorces in Iran.

"Once they get a degree, many young women refuse to stay home and take care of their husband and children and want to work, which is mainly why so many marriages end," said this week Rad Ali Tahmasebi, one of the lawmakers who drafted the bill.

Tahmasebi also blamed the increase in the average marrying age of women on university attendance, noting that this too was a "threat for an Islamic society such as Iran's."

Mon ikke ligestillingsminister Eva Kjer Hansen kan lære noget her? En sådan forfordeling af kønnene på vore højere læreanstalter kan vi virkelig ikke være tjent med.

Et andet område, hvor ligestillingsministeren kan slå til er den offentlige sektor, hvor kønsfordelingen er omtrent lige så skæv som på de iranske universiteter. Her stod i 2001 620.715 skatteyder-aflønnede kvinder over for kun 317.111 mænd.

Et første skridt kunne være en vedtagelse af et kvotesystem som det norske når det drejer sig om bestyrelsesposter. Så kunne ministeren i første omgang nøjes med massefyringer af 60.000 kvinder og tilsvarende ansættelser af mænd.

Velkommen til Gran Canaria

Passagererne på et mauretansk passagerfly blev fredag ofre for en fly-kapring. 11. september har imidlertid lært flypassagerer og -personnel et og andet om flykapringer:

Along the way, speaking to the hijacker, the pilot realized the man did not speak French. So he used the plane's public address system to warn the passengers in French of the ploy he was going to try: brake hard upon landing, then speed up abruptly. The idea was to catch the hijacker off balance, and have crew members and men sitting in the front rows of the plane jump him, the Spanish official said.

The pilot also warned women and children to move to the back of the plane in preparation for the subterfuge, the official said.

It worked. The man was standing in the middle aisle when the pilot carried out his maneuver, and he fell to the floor, dropping one of his two 7 mm pistols. Flight attendants then threw boiling water from a coffee machine in his face and at his chest, and some 10 people jumped on the man and beat him, the Spanish official said.

Helikopter-tab i Irak

Vi hører jævnligt om helikopter-tab i Irak - senst 7. februar. Her lidt baggrund (og en sammenligning med Vietnam-krigen) fra StrategyPage:

Seven helicopters have crashed in Iraq in the last four weeks. Most appear to have been hit by hostile fire. In some of those cases, the hostile fire was carefully planned. That is, multiple machine-guns, including at least one heavy (12.7mm or larger) machine-gun were placed along a route used by helicopters, and fired in a coordinated matter. This tactic is called "flak trap," and dates back to World War II (or earlier).

The enemy has also been using portable surface-to-air missiles since 2003, including more modern models, like the SA-16 (which is similar to the American Stinger.) American helicopters are equipped with missile detection and defense (flare dispensers) equipment. Thus the most dangerous anti-aircraft weapon is the machine-gun. However, aircraft losses to ground fire have been declining every year, since 2003, mainly because of good defensive tactics. Moreover, the most vulnerable aircraft, helicopters, have been spending more time in the air. In 2005, U.S. Army aircraft (mainly helicopters) flew 240,000 hours over Iraq. That increased to 334,000 hours last year, and is expected to go to 400,000 hours in 2007. The more time helicopters are in the air, the more opportunities someone has to shoot at them.

Since 2003, the United States has lost 57 helicopters in Iraq. Most of them (29) belong to the U.S. Army, the rest are marine and civilian (mainly security contractors.) In the last year, helicopters were fired on about a hundred times a month, and about 17 percent of the time, the helicopters were hit. In Vietnam (1966-71), 2,076 helicopters were lost to enemy fire (and 2,566 to non-combat losses). In Vietnam, helicopters flew 36 million sorties (over 20 million flight hours). In Vietnam, helicopters were about twice as likely to get brought down by enemy fire. As in Iraq, the main weapons doing this were machine-guns. Today's helicopters are more sturdy, partly because of Vietnam experience, and are more likely to stay in the air when hit, and land, rather than crash.

Al Qaida vokser i Sahel-bæltet

I Sahel-bæltet lige syd for Sahara er al Qaida begyndt at slå rødder:

According to the Spanish newspaper El País, al-Qaida's organisational strengths are growing, with movable training camps in place in the "scrub country" of the Sahel, the thinly populated, semi-arid region that includes parts of southern Algeria, Mauritania, Mali and Niger. The paper said a Moroccan activist arrested last week in Tarragona had been recruiting jihadis in Spain and sending them to the Sahel for training. That raised the spectre of more attacks on European soil. France is especially jumpy as presidential elections approach.

Alarmed that the area could become an Afghanistan-style "safe haven", the US has created the 10-country Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership and allocated $80m (£41m) for arms, training and intelligence-sharing. The US general William Ward told military chiefs meeting in Senegal this month they shared a "common goal of reducing the ability of violent extremists to harm or kill innocent civilians".

Voice of America har mere:

"We have in recent months evidence of groups from one or other countries in the region using third party countries to enter into and set up bases," Pham said. "The class example being the Algerian group, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, which has been operating several bases in Mauritania for example."

He says a recent court case in Nigeria gives more concrete proof of the threat, also involving Mauritania.

"A Nigerian received money from Sudan, and that part of the record is fairly well established, to send young Nigerians from radical groups in northern Nigeria to Mauritania, specifically for terrorist training," Pham says. ...

Many rebel movements in West Africa, including in Chad, the Central African Republic, Mali, and Ivory Coast say they are fighting to improve the conditions of local populations, rather than advocating a global cause.

Feniou also says some rebel groups like the Tuareg militants in Mali actually ally themselves with their government against Islamic extremists.

"Tuaregs in Mali they have actually sided with the Malian government to fight the Algerian-based GSPC which is overtly linked to al-Qaida, so I think it is not that simple," Feniou said.

Hidtil er kampene mellem Tuaregerne og GSPC dog forholdsvist små (Reuters-artikel fra 2. november):

Tuareg fighters clashed with the GSPC near the Algerian border in September killing a senior commander close to Mokhtar Belmokhtar, their leader in the southern Sahara who is viewed by U.S. military experts as a serious regional security threat.

The militant group responded with a revenge attack last week, ambushing Tuareg rebels near the village of Arouan, some 150 km (95 miles) from Kidal, and killing nine of them.

Endnu en Politiken-kampagne baseret på fejlagtige kilder

Politiken kunne for fem dage siden triumferende brøle, at selv det amerikanske forsvarsministerium nu indrømmede, at Pentagon havde "manipuleret med oplysninger forud for irak-krigen". Beskyldningerne kom, da Pentagons generalinspektør Thomas F. Gimble stod for at offentliggøre en rapport om især Douglas Feith og hans Kontor for Særlige Planer, og om dette kontor havde handlet passende under behandlingen af efterretninger om Irak. Feith var dengang (i 2003) særlig rådgiver for den daværende amerikanske præsident Donald Rumsfeld.

Problemet er, at Politikens eneste kilde til beskyldningerne - rapporten var endnu ikke udkommet, så heller ikke Politiken havde læst den selv - var den stærkt venstreorienterede* demokratiske senator Carl Levin. Det var Levin selv, der i 2005 startede korstoget mod Feith og bad generalinspektør Gimble om at undersøge ham.

Politiken gad ikke at give manden, der er mål for anklagen ordet, så det gør jeg så for dem. Fra Washington Post:

Promoters of the "Bush Lied, People Died" line claim that the recent Pentagon inspector general's report concerning my former office's work on Iraq intelligence supports their cause. What the IG actually said is a different story.

The IG, Thomas Gimble, focused on a single Pentagon briefing from 2002 -- a critique of the CIA's work on the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship. His report concluded that the work my office generated was entirely lawful and authorized, and that Sen. Carl Levin was wrong to allege that we misled Congress.

Gimble made Levin happy, however, by calling the Pentagon briefing "inappropriate," a word the senator has whipped into a political lather. At issue is a simple but critical question: whether policy officials should be free to raise questions about CIA work. In Gimble's opinion, apparently, the answer is no. I disagree.

The CIA has a hard job. Some of its work has been good; some has been famously and disastrously bad, as everyone familiar with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fiasco knows. Intelligence is inherently sketchy and speculative -- and historically often wrong. It is improved when policy officials freely probe and challenge it.

In evaluating our policy toward Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001, my office realized that CIA analysts were suppressing some of their information. They excluded reports conflicting with their favored theory: that the secular Iraqi Baathist regime would not cooperate with al-Qaeda jihadists. (We now face a strategic alliance of jihadists and former Baathists in Iraq.) Pentagon officials did not buy that theory, and in 2002 they gave a briefing that reflected their skepticism. Their aim was not to enthrone a different theory, but to urge the CIA not to exclude any relevant information from what it provided to policymakers. Only four top-level government officials received the briefing: Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and (together) Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A 2004 Senate intelligence committee report praised the quality of the Pentagon's Iraq-al-Qaeda work -- the critical briefing and the related Pentagon-CIA dialogue. The policy officials "played by [intelligence community] rules" and asked questions that "actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's products," it said. Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller both endorsed that judgment.

The recent inspector general's report argues that policy officials "undercut" the CIA by pointing out " 'fundamental problems' with the way the Intelligence Community was assessing information" on the issue of Iraq-al-Qaeda relations -- even though Gimble last week said at a Senate hearing: "Again, I need to just remind everyone, we didn't make an assessment on the validity of either side of this issue." He labeled the Pentagon briefing "inappropriate" not because of any errors in it but because he viewed it as an "intelligence activity" that "varied" from "the intelligence community consensus." The Pentagon officials told the IG, however, that the briefing was a policy activity -- a critique of an intelligence product.

If this report hadn't become part of a political battle, Gimble's position would be scoffed at across the political spectrum. Sensible people recognize the importance of vigorous questioning of intelligence by the CIA's "customers." In bipartisan, unanimous reports on Iraq intelligence, both the Senate intelligence committee and the Silberman-Robb WMD commission called for more such questioning.

Specifically on the Pentagon's criticism of Iraq-al-Qaeda intelligence, the 2004 Senate report noted that our challenges were helpful: Intelligence analysts "stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during this exercise they came across information they had overlooked in initial readings."

In his Senate testimony, Gimble said his report -- and therefore all related claims that my office "manipulated intelligence" -- concerned only this single briefing. His whole argument rests on the claim that the briefing was "disseminated" as "an intelligence product" rather than a policy product. But he acknowledged that neither Rumsfeld nor Tenet could have mistaken the briefers for intelligence community spokesmen. His objections applied solely to the briefing that Hadley and Libby received in September 2002.

Astonishingly, the IG acknowledged that his office had not interviewed either of these officials to ask whether they thought the briefing was an intelligence product. Knowing well that the briefers worked for me, neither could have believed that Pentagon policy officials were speaking for the intelligence community. One of the briefing slides was "Fundamental Problems With How the Intelligence Community Is Assessing Information." Gimble had no basis to say the briefing was seen as an intelligence activity.

In his report, Gimble wrote that the Pentagon briefing was not the "most accurate analysis of intelligence." This has been taken to suggest it was false or deceptive. But the IG said he meant only that the briefing was at "variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community." Of course it was at variance! It was a critique. That's why it was prepared in the first place.

Gimble's characterization is absurdly circular. Cheered on by the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees, he is giving bad advice based on incomplete fact-finding and poor logic. He is discouraging tough questioning of intelligence. Our government needs more such questioning, not less.

* Mht amerikanske forhold gælder det, at da næsten alle politikere er koncentreret i to store partiet, så hjælper alene parti-tilhørsforhold ikke vælgerne meget når de skal vurdere, hvor politikerne ligger på det politiske spektrum. Derfor er amerikanerne vilde med at graduere politikerne efter, hvordan de reelt stemmer når de er blevet valgt. Ifølge National Journal´s Project Vote Smart lå senator Carl Levin således til venstre for 95% af alle andre senatorer i udenrigspolitiske spørgsmål i 2005.

Med andre ord svarer det altså efter danske forhold til, at Politiken havde bedt Frank Aaen om at udtale sig autoritativt om, om Anders Fogh har løjet for folketinget, som det påstås i DR-Enhedslisten co-produktionen "Den Hemmelige Krig". Ikke at sådan noget kunne ske i Danmark (Sarkasme /off)

Troværdigheden er derefter.

EU-rapport: Ikke en rapport når det kommer til stykket

Der er i disse dage megen snak om, at EU-parlamentet har vedtaget en "rapport" om CIA-flyvninger i Europa. Meget kan man kalde det, men en rapport er det ikke. Der er tale om et forslag til en resolution i EU-parlamentet samt fire anneks´er, hovedsageligt planer over de møder der er foretaget og lister over de personer der er eller ikke er blevet interviewet.

En overfladisk gennemlæsning fra min side viser ikke noget, der er værd at beskæftige sig med i længere tid (et eksempel: formodninger uden beviser om, at den fundamentalistisk islamiske egyptiske imam Abu Omar skulle være blevet torteret bliver på side 11 til bevist virkelighed). Hvis nogen skulle have overskud til selv at læse hele molevitten kan "rapporten" læses her.

Sektionerne fra resolutionen, der berører Danmark og vore skandinaviske naboer:

SWEDEN

96. Takes note of the position of the Swedish Government expressed in the letter
transmitted to the Temporary Committee by its Foreign Minister Carl Bildt; regrets that
no representative of the government was able to appear before the Temporary
Committee in order to hold an exchange of views on its position;

97. Condemns the fact that Sweden's expulsion in December 2001 of Mohammed El-Zari
and Ahmed Agiza, Egyptian nationals who were seeking asylum in Sweden, was based
solely on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian Government, which did not provide
effective safeguards against torture; also acknowledges that the Swedish government
hindered them from exercising their rights in accordance with the European convention,
by not informing their lawyers until before they had arrived in Cairo; deplores the fact
that the Swedish authorities accepted an US offer to place at their disposal an aircraft
which benefited from special overflight authorisation in order to transport the two men
to Egypt;

98. Deplores the fact that the Swedish security police lost control over the enforcement of
the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari to Egypt, outside the rule of
law, by remaining passive during the degrading treatment of the men by US agents at
Bromma airport;

99. Underlines that the decision of the expulsion was taken at the highest executive level,
from which no appeal was possible;

100. Fully endorses the UN Human Rights Committee's decision of 6 November 2006 in
which it found that Sweden had breached the absolute ban on torture; similarly endorses
a separate ruling by the UN Committee against Torture of 20 May 2005, which
concluded that Sweden had violated the UN Convention against Torture and other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and stated that “procurement of
diplomatic assurances (from Egypt), which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their
enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk";

101. Thanks the Swedish Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, Mats Melin, for his testimony to
the Temporary Committee and applauds his investigation which concluded that the
Swedish security service and airport police “were remarkably submissive to the
American officials” and “lost control of the enforcement”, resulting in the ill-treatment
of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari, including physical abuse and other
humiliation, at the airport immediately before they were transported to Cairo;

DENMARK

129. Welcomes the cooperation received from the Danish authorities, while regretting that no
representative of the government considered it appropriate to appear before the
Temporary Committee;

Eneste person, komitteen inviterede var transportminister Flemming Hansen, og komitteen angiver selv grunden for det som at alt relevant materiale allerede har været fremlagt for Folketinget, og er blevet videresendt til komitteen.

Prophet of Doom

Har man ikke selv læst koranen, hadith eller sira (altså den totale overlevering om den påståede profet Muhammed), så kan hjemmesiden Prophet of Doom klart anbefales. Her gennemgås koranen såvel som de fire ældste, autoritative kilder om Mohammeds gøren og laden ud i alle detaljer, og resultatet er ikke for sarte sjæle. En smagsprøve fra kapitel 22, Legacy of Terror (tekst med rødt er fra koran, hadith og sira, resten er kommentar og forklaring):

The 66th surah was also revealed around this time. It’s called "Prohibition." Incredibly, it too was focused on Muhammad’s sexual indulgences. The only thing it "prohibited" was criticism of the prophet’s decadent lifestyle. Qur’an 66:1 "O Prophet! Why forbid yourself that which Allah has made lawful to you? You seek to please your consorts. And Allah is Forgiving, Most Kind. Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows." Here’s the rub. Earlier, Muhammad said that his god approved a maximum of four wives, inclusive of sex slaves. But he woke up one morning and had at least six times that number. He needed to prune his harem or get his god to amend the Qur’an - to cut his favorite prophet a deal. He chose the latter. In doing so, he made a mockery of his scripture. But not to worry; he banned mocking in the previous surah.

The passage contained a fatal line for a prophet: "Allah has sanctioned the dissolution of your vows." A "sanction" is permission or approval. It authorizes or ratifies something. In this context "dissolution" means to abrogate, dissolve, or break. A "vow" is a solemn promise, a pledge or an earnest declaration. Muhammad’s principal vows were that he was the Messenger of God, that the Qur’an was revealed by Allah, and that following his example would lead to paradise. If you are a Muslim and are reliant on these promises, be forewarned: "Allah has sanctioned the dissolution of [Muhammad’s. vows]."

Qur’an 66:3 "When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, she then divulged it, and Allah made it known to him. He confirmed part and repudiated part. When he told her, she said, ‘Who told you this.' He said, ‘He Who knows and is well-acquainted.'" You've got to give Muhammad credit for one thing - it takes guts to pass off pillow talk for scripture. But it begs the question: what on earth did Muhammad divulge to one of his sex slaves that was so incriminating the rumor had to be squashed by a "divine" ordinance?

Speaking directly to the consorts, the "creator of the universe" gave us a clue as he tried to quell a rift in his aged prophet’s harem: Qur’an 66:4 "If you two (women) turn in repentance to him, it would be better. Your hearts have been impaired, for you desired (the ban) [on how many girls Muhammad could play with at a time]. But if you back each other up against (Muhammad), truly Allah is his protector, and Gabriel, and everyone who believes - and furthermore, the angels will back (him) up." With his insecurities showing, "god" issued another veiled threat. But he also answered the preceding riddle. Muhammad had let his guard down, and while frolicking with one of his captives, said something like: "Stop complaining or I'll make up a Qur’an saying Allah and his angels are with me and against you."

Islam’s prophet wants us to believe that his "god" got tough on his unruly brothel. He said that if they continued to bellyache, he would change them out for a fresh batch of virgins. Funny thing, though; Muhammad was the only one who heard Allah say any of this. Qur’an 66:5 "Maybe, if he divorces you (all), Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, adorers who worship, who travel, and are inclined to fasting - previously married or virgins."

This verse exposes the true nature of the Qur’an. Muhammad was willing to contrive godly revelations to silence his wives and concubines and to add to his collection of experienced women and playful virgins. He even ran a personal ad: "Seeking girls who were submissive, obedient, hungry, willing to travel and worship me." Even the word "consort" is intriguing. Webster defines it as the spouse of a reigning monarch. The prophet had become king.

Musik - Jesus Freak og Cryptorchid

Igen er det lykkedes mig at falde over to stykker musik på Youtube, som jeg har lyst til at sende videre. Denne gang to ret forskellige stykker.

DC Talk - Jesus Freak

Vel nok det største hit for den hedengangne amerikanske (og kristne) trio DC Talk. De startede med at udgive plader med kristen hip hop, men endte med istedet at eksperimentere en del med rock. De gik fra hinanden i 2000.



Marilyn Manson - Cryptorchid

Marilyn Manson selv behøver vel ikke nogen nærmere introduktion. Selve nummeret havde jeg ikke hørt, før jeg en dag faldt over det på nettet. Et sjældendt tilfælde hvor musik og video går op i en højere enhed. Selv om de fleste vil betegne videoen som sær (selv kommer jeg til at tænke på gyseren "Freaks" fra 1932 - og det er en god ting), så kan jeg ikke lade være med at blive fascineret af den....ja nærmest synes, den er smuk.

72 Jomfruer

Fra The New Yorker :-)

Virgin No. 1: Yuck.

Virgin No. 2: Ick.

Virgin No. 3: Ew.

Virgin No. 4: Ow.

Virgin No. 5: Do you like cats? I have fourteen!

Virgin No. 6: I’m Becky. I’ll be legal in two years.

Virgin No. 7: Here, I’ll just pull down your zipper. Oh, sorry!

Virgin No. 8: Can we cuddle first?

Virgin No. 9: It was a garlic-and-onion pizza. Why?

Virgin No. 10: . . . so I see Heath, and he goes, “Like, what are you doing here?,” and I go, “I’m hangin’ out,” so he goes, “Like, what?” . . .

Virgin No. 11: First you’re going to have to show me an up-to-date health certificate.

Virgin No. 12: Hurry! My parents are due home!

Virgin No. 13: Do you want the regular or the special?

Virgin No. 14: I’m eighty-four. So what?

Virgin No. 15: Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

Virgin No. 16: Even I know that’s tiny.

Virgin No. 17: “Do it”? Meaning what?

Virgin No. 18: I’m saving myself for Jesus.

Virgin No. 19: Somewhere on my body I have hidden a buffalo nickel.

Virgin No. 20: Don’t touch my hair!

Virgin No. 21: I hope you’re not going to sleep with me and then go sleep with seventy-one others.

Virgin No. 22: Do you mind if we listen to Mannheim Steamroller?

Virgin No. 23: Are you O.K. with the dog on the bed?

Virgin No. 24: Would you mind saying, “Could I see you in my office, Miss Witherspoon?”?

Virgin No. 25: Ride me! Ride me, Lucky Buck!

Virgin No. 26: You like your vanilla hot?

Virgin No. 27: Does Ookums like Snookums?

Virgin No. 28: It’s so romantic here, dead.

Virgin No. 29: Well, I’m a virgin, but my hand isn’t.

Virgin No. 30: You are in?

Virgin No. 31: Hi, cowboy. I just rode down from Brokeback Mountain.

Virgin No. 32: I’m a virgin because I’m so ugly.

Virgin No. 33: You like-ee?

Virgin No. 34: I’ll betcha you can’t get an erection. Go on, impress me. C’mon, show me. Show me, big shot.

Virgin No. 35: By the way, here in Heaven “virgin” has a slightly different meaning. It means “chatty.”

Virgin No. 36: Sure, I like you, but as a friend.

Virgin No. 37: No kissing. I save that for my boyfriend.

Virgin No. 38: I’m Zania, from the planet Xeron. My vagina is on my foot.

Virgin No. 39: It’s a lesion, and, no, I don’t know what kind.

Virgin No. 40: I’m Jewish. Why do you ask?

Virgin No. 41: Hi, I’m Becky. Oh, whoops—you again.

Virgin No. 42: I just love camping! Camping is so great! Can we go camping sometime?

Virgin No. 43: In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a single mom.

Virgin No. 44: You like my breasts? They were my graduation gift.

Virgin No. 45: When you’re done, you should really check out how cool this ceiling is.

Virgin No. 46: I’m almost there. Just another couple of hours.

Virgin No. 47: Get your own beer, you nitwit.

Virgin No. 48: No, you’ve got it wrong. We’re in the Paradise Casino.

Virgin No. 49: I really enjoyed that. Thank you very much. Gee, it’s late.

Virgin No. 50: You make me feel like a real woman. And after this is over I’m going to find one.

Virgin No. 51: What do you mean, “move a little”?

Virgin No. 52: Not now, I’m on my BlackBerry.

Virgin No. 53: I love it when you put on your pants and leave.

Virgin No. 54: We’ve been together twenty-four hours now, and, you know, sometimes it’s O.K. to say something mildly humorous.

Virgin No. 55: That was terrible. I should have listened to the other virgins.

Virgin No. 56: I think I found it. Is that it? Oh. Is this it? Oh, this must be it. No?

Virgin No. 57: It must be hot in here, because I know it’s not me.

Virgin No. 58: Those are my testicles.

Virgin No. 59: Did you know that “virgin” is an anagram of Irving?

Virgin No. 60: First “Spamalot,” then sex.

Virgin No. 61: Great! I was hoping for circumcised.

Virgin No. 62: Was that it?

Virgin No. 63: Dang. George Clooney was being reckless on a motorcycle, but instead I got you.

Virgin No. 64: Tonight, I become a woman. But until then you can call me Bob.

Virgin No. 65: They’re called “adult diapers.” Why?

Virgin No. 66: We could do it here for free, or on a stage in Düsseldorf for money.

Virgin No. 67: I’m just Virgin No. 67 to you, right?

Virgin No. 68: Pee-yoo. Are you wearing Aramis?

Virgin No. 69: Condom, please.

Virgin No. 70: My name is Mother Teresa.

Virgin No. 71: I’m not very good at this, but let’s start with the Reverse Lotus Blossom.

Virgin No. 72: It was paradise, until you showed up.

Planer for massemord på amerikanske skoler

Fra Family Security Matters:

Should we be surprised? Not when Al-Qaeda has publicly asserted the "right" to kill 2,000,000 American children, Rassa explained, and has warned that "operations are in stages of preparation" now. Rassa played videotapes confiscated in Afghanistan, showing al-Qaeda terrorists practicing the takeover of a school. The trainees issue commands in English, rehearse separating youngsters into manageable groups and meeting any resistance with violence. Some "hostages" are taken to the rooftop, dangled over the edge, then "shot."

"Any place that has given [Islamic terrorists] trouble, they've come after the kids," Grossman said. Muslim religious literature, according to Rassa, states clearly that the killing of children not only is "permitted" in Islam but is "approved" by Mohammed, so long as the perpetrators "are striving for the general good" as interpreted by that religion.

He cited actual recent instances in Indonesia where girls on their way to school have been beheaded and in other countries where children have been shot, mutilated, raped or burned alive.

In this country this year ['06], Rassa said, there have been several school bus-related incidents involving Middle Eastern males that raise suspicion of terrorist activity. These include the surprise boarding of a school bus in Florida by two men in trench coats, who may have been on a canvassing mission, and the attempt in New York State by an Arab male to obtain a job as a school bus driver using fraudulent Social Security documents. The latter gave an address in Detroit, home to a large colony of fundamentalist Muslims.

Rassa stated that floor plans for half a dozen schools in Virginia, Texas and New Jersey have been recovered from terrorist hands in Iraq.

Our nation was gripped by the “massacre” at Columbine High School a few years ago, committed by two deeply troubled students. As tragic as that was, imagine what several more truly fanatic and lethally-trained illegal alien terrorists could do in one of our schools. It has already happened in other schools to other people’s children, and you must read it to believe it:

“…the brutal takedown in 2004 of a school that served children from 6 to 17 years old in Beslan, Russia.

Some 100 terrorists were involved, nearly half of whom were discreetly embedded in the large crowd of parents, staff and kids who showed up for the first day of school; the rest arrived for the surprise attack in SUVs, troop carriers and big sedans. Across a three-day siege, 700 people were wounded and 338 killed, including 172 youngsters.

More than 1,000 men, women and children, including babies, were penned in an unventilated gym and a cafeteria. As the days passed without food or water and inside temperatures rose to 115 degrees, survivors were eating flowers they'd brought for teachers and fighting for urine to drink out of their shoes in desperation. Women and some of the children were repeatedly and continuously raped.

Adult males and larger male students were used as ‘forced labor’ to help fortify the building, then shot to death. Bodies were thrown out of an upper-story window, down onto a courtyard. Attempts at negotiation by responders were used by the terrorists strictly as an opportunity to buy time to solidify their fortifications.

Surviving hostages were surrounded by armed guards standing on deadman switches, wired to explosives. All entrances to the building as well as stairwells and some interior doorways were booby-trapped. Youngsters were forced to sit on window sills to serve as shields for snipers. ‘Black widows’ (potential suicide bombers) were rigged so their bomb belts could be detonated by remote control when leaders considered the timing was right. The terrorists stayed cranked up on some type of amphetamine to keep awake.

…When troops finally stormed the school in a counter-assault on the third day, ‘pure pandemonium’ reigned. Soldiers and the kids they were trying to rescue were gunned down mercilessly. Explosions touched off inside started multiple fires.

Responders who made it inside had to jump over trip wires as they ran up stairs under fire from above. By then terrorists were holding hostages in virtually every room. Rescue teams were subjected to continual ambushes. Gunfights occurred predominately within a 6-ft. range, with some responders having to fight for their lives in places so cramped they couldn't get off their hands and knees. ...

The police and swat team could not save the students and teachers at Columbine from two moderately armed but amateur killers. Illegal alien terrorists targeting schools will be heavily armed and thoroughly trained to kill and will not be holding captured kids for ransom. Nor will they be persuaded by the can’t-we-all-just-get-along influence of demonstrators singing Kumbaya. They want to die serving their cause and will try to kill as many American children as they can before they themselves are finally killed.

Jundallah III

Læsere af min blog vil huske, at jeg har en vis interesse i gruppen Jundallah, der kæmper Baluchiernes sag mod hundrede års shiitisk iransk besættelse (se indlæg i maj sidste år og igen sidste måned). Som jeg bemærkede i januar var deres bombeangreb i december stort set det første man havde hørt fra dem siden iranske styrker bombede en række baluchiske landsbyer sønder og sammen i maj. Nu lader gruppen imidlertid til at være tilbage med endnu et angreb på de forhadte revolutions-gardister.

Hen mod klokken ti minutter over seks om morgenen lokal tid var en bus fra Baseej-militsen, fuld af revolutions-gardister fra den Islamiske Revolutions Garde-Korps (IRGK), på vej gennem byen Zahedans gader. På vej mod sit mål - en IRGK-base - blev bussen stoppet af en Peykan, en iransk-produceret bil, der lod til at have motor-problemer. Bilens fire passagerer løb pludselig hen til to motorcykler parkeret nær ved, og detonerede den bil de lige var steget ud af - en bilbombe. Dette fra de iranske nyhedsbureauer IRNA og Fars samt METimes.

Ud over disse grundlæggende fakta varierer detaljerne noget. Ifølge Fars dræbte bilbomben 11 revolutionsgardister og sårede 31, mens IRNA rapporterer om 18 dræbte og "mange" sårede, og om at de fire flygtende bil-passagerer åbnede ild mod bussen for at få den til at stoppe ved den efterladte bombe.

Efterfølgende rapporterer iranske medier om, at de allerede skulle have fanget nogle mistænkte. Fars nævner 2 arresterede, hvoraf den ene filmede gerningsstedet, mens den anden blev arresteret i besiddelse af en håndgranat og udefinerede "eksplosive apparater", og ifølge iranerne skulle have fejlet i et planlagt selvmordsbombnings-forsøg. Ifølge IRNA er antallet af arresterede oppe på fem.

Dette er kun det sidste i en række af spektakulære angreb på de iranske besættelsesstyrker, som jeg tidligere har forsøgt at lave en liste over her. De større, blandt en række andre angreb:

• 15. december 2005: Jundallah forsøger at dræbe Irans præsident Ahmadinejad i Zahedan. En livvagt og en lokal sikkerhedsmand bliver omkommer.
• Sent i december 2005: Jundallah kidnapper 9 iranske soldater og 3 tyrkiske statsborgere. Én af de iranske soldater bliver henrettet, mens resten senere løslades. Jundallah tager ansvaret.
• 17. marts 2006: På vejen mellem Zabol og Zahedan opretter Jundallah-krigere iklædt militær-uniformer en falsk vejspærring og stopper en konvoj med højtstående provins- og regerings-pinger. Passagererne bliver tvunget ud af deres biler og bliver derefter skudt. Officielt bliver 22 af passagererne dræbt og 7 såret, uofficielt er det totale antal ofre nærmere 50. Blandt de dræbte er Zahedan-guvernementets sikkerhedschef, og blandt de sårede samme guvernements guvernør og vice-guvernør. Yderligere 7 passagerer bliver bortført, blandt dem den lokale kommandant for revolutionsgarden. Han henrettes senere. Jundallah tager ansvaret.
• 14. maj 2006: En uidentificeret gruppe opretter en falsk vejspærring uden for Bam, stopper forbipasserende biler og henretter 12 passagerer. Den iranske regering påstår, det er Jundallah, men Jundallah selv fralægger sig ansvaret.

OPDATERET:

Hvis nogen gider se TV2News, så kan man nu nyde stationen blamere sig nogle gange i timen, når den smider en grafik på med, hvor Zahedan ligger. For mig at se placerer de byen nogenlunde hvor Shiraz er. Zahedan ligger 800 kilometer længere mod øst. Kig selv efter på et kort over Iran.

Jeg har forsøgt at ringe ind med en korrektion, men efter at fre forskellige TV2-ansatte har nægtet at tage mod den gider jeg ikke mere. Så må de selv rode med det.

OPDATERET II:

Mens jeg er i gang kan jeg vel lige så godt opdatere min oprindelige liste over Jundallah-angreb (virkelige og påståede) i løbet af det sidste halve år:

• 14. juni 2006: En lyd-bombe eksploderer i Zahedan klokken 19.50 lokal tid. Officielt er der ingen ofre undtagen tre biler, der får deres vinduer blæst ind. Uofficielt rapporterer vidner om flere dødsofre.
• 14. juni 2006: En lyd-bombe placeret i en skraldespand eksploderer i Zahedan klokken 20.50 om aftenen. Eneste offer er en kommunalt ansat, der bliver såret.
• 15. juni 2006: En lyd-bombe eksploderer klokken 19.50 lokal tid i en fast food-restaurant og sårer tre mennesker.
• Første halvdel af december 2006: 9 soldater fra grænsepatruljen bliver kidnappet af Jundallah fra Saravan Politistation. Angrebet er en næsten nøjagtig gentagelse af et lignende angreb et år før.
• 14. december 2006: En bilbombe plantet i en stjålen Paykan-bil på gaden foran generalguvernørens hovedkvarter i Zahedan klokken 21.30. Eneste offer er bilbombens chauffør. Fire biler parkeret nær ved bliver beskadiget, og en del vindue blæst ud.
• 14. december 2006: En bombe plantet i en affaldsspand uden for Zahedan Universitet eksploderer, og sårer en studerende i benet.
• 1. februar 2007: I Zahedan dræber Jundallah fire medlemmer af sikkerhedsstyrkerne under det iranske præstestyres fejring af sin egen 28-års fødselsdag.

OPDATERET III

Endnu et angreb:

• 16. februar 2007: Endnu en lyd-bombe bliver sprængt klokken 22.00 i Zahedan, uden ofre. De fleste medier nævner, at eksplosionen fandt sted nær en pigeskole. Kun få nævner, at dette var tilfældigt - skolen var tom så sent på dagen, og bomben uanset placeret lige foran en politibil. Efter eksplosionen omringer politiet området, og skudkampe bryder ud mellem dem og Jundallah.
• Samtidig siger de iranske myndigheder, at antallet af arresterede for bilbomben i onsdags er kommet op på 65, og at de alle er amerikanske agenter. En er endda en bankrøver, der er blevet betalt for det, og er blevet trænet af engelsktalende fremmede agenter. Nå ja.

En tanke: Jundallahs angreb er generelt kendetegnede ved enten at være lyd-bomber (stort brag, men lille spræng-virkning) placeret offentlige steder eller meget effektive målrettede angreb direkte efter mullah-regimets stormtropper. Med andre ord ikke umiddelbart nogen af de kendetegn, man ellers forbinder med Taliban- og al Qaeda-agtige terror-organisationer, som Iran desperat forsøger at forbinde organisationen med. Eller for den sags skyld med ret mange andre organisationer i regionen end venstreorienterede typer som PKK eller Folkets Mojahedin.

Interessant nok dukkede Jundallahs leder Abdolmalek Rigi få minutter før bombesprængningen fredag op på den iranske modstandsgruppe Folkets Mojahedin´s tv-station. Og Folkets Mojahedin har siden midt-firserne været koncentreret i lejre i Irak, hvor de idag er interneret af amerikanske styrker.

Det kunne ligne en tanke, men intet står fast.

Iran fange med fingrene langt nede i kagedåsen

For nogle dage siden begyndte USA at afsløre de beviser, de har på, at Iran via sine lokale stråmænd myrder koalitions-soldater i Irak, noget der allerede var almindelig kendt blandt de danske soldater i Irak for over et år siden (se feks. Information 28. januar sidste år). Beviserne, der hidtil er fremlagt er hovedsageligt iransk-producerede våben der er blevet fundet under razziaer på terrorist-baser eller under angreb på koalitionsstyrker. En grafik over det fremlagte kan ses hos New York Times her.

Fra New York Times´referat fra briefingen. Alle de nævnte våben er iransk-producerede:


Three senior coalition defence officials including a defence official, an explosives expert and a defence analyst presented the following evidence:

* Fragments of an Iranian-made roadside bomb known as an explosively formed penetrator (EFPs). The US military first detected use of EFPs in 2004, but noted a big increase in 2006. EFPs use shaped charges, which penetrate armour by focusing explosive power in a single direction and by firing a metal projectile embedded in the device into the target at high speed. They are strong enough to penetrate an Abrams tank.

* Fragments of fins from 81-mm and 60-mm mortar bombs. One grenade from a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

* False IDs of Iranians who were detained at an Iranian government office in Arbil in Iraq's autonomous region of Kurdistan last month.


* Slides showing other weapons, including a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile. There was no evidence these weapons had been used to shoot down helicopters, the officials said.

* Slides showing a complete mortar bomb, with serial and manufacturing number. ...

* The officials accused five Iranians arrested by US troops in Arbil in January of being members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Qods Force, which they said was getting its orders from the "highest levels" of the Iranian Government.


* The Qods Force was accused of training and funding Iraqi militants.

* The five detained in Arbil were not carrying diplomatic passports and included one man who was a Qods Force operational chief. During the arrest raid, they tried to flush documents down a toilet. One of those arrested had traces of explosives on his body, the offiicals said. ...

* The officials said Iran has several surrogate groups in Iraq, including rogue elements of the Mehdi Army militia of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. They said these elements "carried out the majority" of the EFP attacks.


* Another group was the network of a former official of the Badr Organisation, which is part of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a major Shi'ite political organisation.

* Iraqi smugglers are bringing bomb components and money in vehicles at night across three points along the Iranian-Iraqi border, the officials said



Blandt de 170 koalitions-soldater, der er blevet dræbt af vejsidebomber som de ovenfor nævnte i Irak er tre danskere:

Bjarke Olsen Kirkmand






Jesper Nielsen



Kim Wadim




På baggrund af USA´s præsentation af efterretninger om masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak, som siden kun blev fundet godt fem hundrede stykker af blev der øjeblikkeligt rejst tvivl om, om iranske våben brugt til at myrde koalitions-soldater automatisk betyder involvering af den iranske regering. Tvivlen herskede endda i det amerikanske militær.

Men hvad hvis man i Irak havde fundet over hundrede snigskytterifler, som man kan bevise allerede efter 45 dage i iranske hænder blev brugt til at myrde den første koalitions-soldat i Irak? (via LFG):

Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.


More than 100 of the .50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids. The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.


The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops.


Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.

Forberedelser til en ny borgerkrig i Libanon

Idag er toårsdagen for mordet på den tidligere Libanesiske premierminister Rafiq Hariri, som en kombination af den syriske efterretningstjeneste, palæstinensiske lejemordere og Hezbollah menes at stå bag. I den forbindelse har støtter af Rafiq Hariris familie og den libanesiske regering tænkt sig at markere dagen med en masse-demonstration mod bagmændene i Syrien. Syrerne og deres libanesiske lakajer har allerede sendt en advarsel i form af to terrorbomber i går, der dræbte 3 og sårede 20 i et kristent område, men mange flygter at det kun er en forsmag på hvad der er i vente. Libaneserne forbereder sig på en borgerkrig:

Just a few yards from a statue of the Virgin, marking the spot where the Lebanese civil war started back in 1975, Elie Harfouch sized up visitors to this Christian neighborhood.

After deciding the strangers weren't a threat, he warned that tensions in Lebanon were as high as they'd ever been and that Wednesday's second anniversary of the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri could be a bloody one.

"The young people are boiling," said Harfouch, 50. "You can't hold them back."

It's not just the young people. According to diplomatic sources, intelligence analysts and interviews in various neighborhoods, Sunnis, Shiites and Christians in Beirut have begun stockpiling weapons and posting sentries to defend against what they say are possible assaults by rival factions.

Harfouch, a former fighter for the Lebanese Forces, one of the numerous militias that tore Lebanon apart in a 15-year civil war that ended in 1990, said residents of Ain el-Roummani are "absolutely" preparing. Guards are posted in strategic buildings to watch for incoming Shiite mobs, he said, and most people are buying weapons.

"A rifle used to cost $200. Now it costs $1,000," Harfouch said, and shrugged. "You have to defend yourself."

The event that has neighborhoods turning into bunkers is the planned rally on Wednesday by the pro-government coalition known as March 14, named for the date of a huge pro-Hariri, anti-Syrian protest, one month after the slaying of the popular prime minister in 2005.

Wednesday's rally is planned for a city square where the body of Hariri lies, not far from the 2-month-old sprawling tent city and sit-in that the militant Islamic Shiite group Hezbollah and its supporters -- the March 8 coalition, named for a pro-Syrian street rally in 2005 -- have erected in downtown Beirut in a bid to force the U.S.-supported government of Fuad Saniora from power.

The current crisis erupted in November, three months after the devastating Hezbollah-Israel war, when six pro-Syrian ministers resigned from Saniora's Cabinet. That was followed by strikes and the continuing sit-in downtown organized by Hezbollah.

Two days of street battles at the end of January in Beirut and elsewhere between pro- and anti-government forces resulted in the death of nine people and the wounding of at least 300. The violence also took on a sectarian tone as Sunnis, who mainly support the government headed by one of their own, fought the Syrian-backed Shiite protesters.

January's clashes between gangs of young men was fought mainly with sticks and stones. But as the rise in prices for weapons suggests, neighborhoods seem to be preparing for more deadly clashes. ...

And there is little doubt that Hezbollah is by far the best armed and equipped of all the Lebanese factions. However, according to intelligence analysts, major groups comprising the March 14 coalition -- mostly the Lebanese Forces, the Druze-led Progressive Socialist Party and the Future Movement, led by Saad Hariri, son of the slain ex-prime minister -- are busy procuring weapons and training as a precaution against any outbreak in violence. ...

Bhalla said she has received reports that Hariri is buying weapons from Saudi Arabia and Jordan -- mostly automatic rifles, heavy machine guns, ammunition and mortars -- and storing them in West Beirut, a primarily Sunni part of the city.

A high-level member of Hezbollah, who demanded anonymity, said young people in the Sunni neighborhoods are being organized and trained by older men who fought in the Lebanese civil war for the al-Murabitun, then the largest Sunni militia.

Hezbollah also charges that Wissam al-Hassan, Rafik Hariri's former chief of security and now the head of the intelligence division within the Interior Ministry's Internal Security Forces, is distributing gun licenses to Sunni men, allowing them to buy weapons easily from local gun shops. ...

Bhalla said Hezbollah is also readying itself. She said hundreds of Hezbollah fighters from the group's strongholds outside Beirut have moved into the tent city downtown. Sniper teams from Hezbollah, Amal and the allied Syrian Social Nationalist Party have also scouted buildings surrounding downtown to prevent any members of the March 14 movement from provoking them into violence, she said.

On Thursday, the Lebanese army intercepted a truck filled with rockets and small arms in a neighborhood about a five-minute drive from downtown. Hezbollah said the weapons were destined for its fighters in the south and demanded their return under an agreement the Lebanese government made with Hezbollah to support the "right of the resistance" against Israel. ...

Back in Ain el-Roummani, Harfouch scoffed at the notion that Hezbollah's weapons shipment was for use against Israel.

"What does the resistance need with light arms?" he asked sarcastically. "They're for internal fighting. There isn't anyone who isn't arming themselves."

OPDATERING:

For at sætte især de kristnes vilje til konfrontation i perspektiv skal man være klar over, at de siden 2004 har været udsat for en stribe mord udført af Syrisk-støttede islamistiske terrorister. En liste jeg har sammensat ud fra oplysningerne på TheReligionofPeace.com:

13. februar 2007: 3 dræbt og 20 såret da bo busser sprænges i luften i den kristne by Bikfaya.

21. november 2006: 1 dræbt, da en kristen leder bliver skudt af muslimske terrorister støttet af Syrien i Beirut.

22. september 2006: En dræbt da al-Ansar terrorister dræber en Palæstinensisk mand i Ein el Hilweh.

9. maj 2006: Fire dræbt og fire sårede i Rmeileh da radikale muslimer sprænger en bombe mod en gruppe, der efterforsker en kristen mands død

12. december 2005: Fire dræbt og tredive såret i Mkalles af en bilbombe brugt til mordet på en kristen journalist

16. september 2005: En dræbt og toogtyve såret af en bombe i et kristent kvarter i Beirut.

23. juli 2005: Tolv såret af en bilbombe i et kristent kvarter i Beirut.

12. juli 2005: En dræbt og tolv såret i Beirut under mordforsøg med bombe mod en kristen politiker.

21. juni 2005: En dræbt og en såret da en anti-syrisk politisk leder bliver dræbt af en bilbombe i Beirut.

2. juni 2005: En dræbt og en såret i Beirut da en bilbombe tager en journalist der var modstander af den syriske besættelses liv.

7. maj 2005 i Jounieh: To dræbt og otteogtyve såret af en bombe i forretningskvarteret i den kristne by Jounieh.

1. april 2005: Tolv såret af en bombe planted uden for et forretningscenter i den kristne by Broummana.

26. marts 2005: Fem bliver såret af en bombe i en kristen forstad til Beirut.

23. marts 2005: Tre bliver dræbt og tre såret da muslimske terrorister detonerer en bombe på 80 kilogram i et indkøbscenter i den kristne by Jounieh.

19. marts 2005: To bliver dræbt og elleve såret da syrisk-støttede terrorister detonerer en bilbombe i et kristent kvarter i Beirut.

18. februar 2005: To bliver dræbt da islamister detonerer en bombe på en kristent ejet tank-station.

14. februar 2005: Femten bliver såret og et hundrede og tyve såret da en bilbombe dræber den tidligere libanesiske premierminister Rafiq Hariri i Beirut.

1. oktober 2004: En bliver dræbt og fem såret, da pro-syriske terrorister detonerer en bilbombe i et mordforsøg på en politiker i Beirut.