Det kunne egentlig godt være en scene fra en zombiefilm i dogmestil à la Diary of the Dead, for man ser ikke så meget til den overvældende horde af væsener der sender de britiske betjente på vild flugt og til evig ydmygelse på YouTube. Men det er hverken u-døde lig med hang til frisk hjernemasse, eller sjælløse body snatchers-kopier af mennesker, men levende mennesker der bare elsker døden som vi elsker Pepsi Cola. London anno 2009. Hvordan ser Europa ud i 2019, 2029 …. , hvornår indtræffer vendepunktet så pendulet svinger tilbage til det fredelige og harmoniske samfund vi tog for givet indtil for få år siden? (LFPC)

Update: En kommentarskriver der var til stede her skriver på Jihad Watch at hvad vi ser er politiet ‘eskortere’ horden til den israelske ambassade:

Thanks for posting this. I recognize this footage as I was in this crowd. The police are backing up because they are ‘escorting’ this crowd from Trafalgar Square to the Israeli Embassy. Just remember – these are the same people who complained of police ‘brutality’ because shortly after this clip ends the riot police were called in and pushed part of the crowd back.
Oh and by the way, while the crowd was stopped at Hyde Park police walked up and down the crowd with loudspeakers asking them to “stay calm” that they were securing a route to “escort them to the embassy.”
It’s interesting how the police went out of their way to accomodate these thugs, only to be shown by the events outside the embassy this Saturday that clearly, appeasement does not work.
Posted by: J [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 12, 2009 1:07 PM

Noteret

Prisoners convert to Islam for gang protection

“Enough with pro-Hamas marches now, Milan is not a province of Gaza “

Religion som førtidspension

og “Mange indvandrere er tabt. Ulighederne er ved at knække samfundet i to.” LO’s Ugebrev A 4:

Religion er blevet en undskyldning for at holde sig væk fra arbejdsmarkedet. Ingen rettigheder uden pligter, lyder mantraet i det danske samfund nu. Men i mange år underviste man nærmest indvandrere i at trække flest muligt penge ud af statskassen. Det fejltrin er sammen med genopfindelsen af en snæversynet og fordømmende form for islam med til at holde indvandrere væk fra arbejde og engagement i det danske samfund. Det mener integrationskonsulent Esma Birdi, der selv har tyrkiske rødder.
Hun uddannede sig til tolk og oplevede ofte i mødet mellem danskere og indvandrere en fuldstændig mangel på fælles referenceramme og forståelse for, hvad den danske samfundsmodel går ud på.
»Jeg har oplevet folk, der stillede på kommunen og nærmest sagde ”værsgo, her er min mand, han er lige kommet herop og vil gerne hjælpes resten af livet”. Den negative holdning til de nye krav om uddannelse og arbejde er nedarvet blandt de indvandrere, der blev hardcore bistandsmodtagere, og hvis børn og børnebørn aldrig har oplevet deres forældre tage del i samfundet eller livet uden for lejligheden. Den gruppe indvandrere lever i et parallelsamfund, hvor man i øjeblikket er ved at genopfinde religionen som endnu en forklaring på, at man ikke skal have et job eller tage del i samfundet.«LO: Ugebrevet A 4-  12. januar 2009 /nr. 1

se ved samme lejlighed, millarder af kroner  senere:

Mange indvandrere er tabt. Ulighederne er ved at knække samfundet i to

Den største og mest problematiske ulighed i det danske samfund er mellem danskere og indvandrere. Det mener befolkningen ifølge en undersøgelse, hvor ulighederne i det danske samfund for første gang rangordnes. Uligheden mellem indvandrere og danskere slår alt

Kommentar til artiklen Uligheden mellem danskere og indvandrere slår alt 

 I denne artikel gennemgås en undersøgelse af danskernes opfattelse af de mest presserende uligheder. Jeg var interesseret i feltet indvandrere. Men artiklen er ret vagt formuleret på det område, og det  kan kun skyldes den tvetydige formulering i selve undersøgelsens spørgsmål. Det er tilsyneladende et forskningsideal, når det gælder undersøgelser om forholdet mellem indvandrere og danskere. Formuleringen af spørgsmålene skal være åbenbart være sådan at den der nærer modvilje eller irriteres over indvandrere kan tælle med som  positivt indstillet. Svar to personer. Her drejer det sig om en bedømt ulighed er et stort eller lille problem. Når man ser et problem, kan man være bekymret på egne vegne eller bekymret for andre.

Universelt er der to målestokke som både grupper og individer bruger til at vurdere hinanden med. Første målestok er varme : er det en ven eller en fjende, altså truer de mine værdier eller støtter dem ? Og den anden målestok er kompetence: kan han yde os noget, eller kommer deres slags til at koste mig ? 

Når danskerne vurderer uligheden mellem danske og indvandrere som høj og problematisk, er det så den værdimæssige ulighed (vi har ikke samme mening om godt og skidt) de ser ? Og er de i så fald bekymrede på egne vegne eller måske for at indvandrernes børn kun i ringe grad bliver integreret og på den måde forbliver ulige med resten af samfundet ? Eller drejer erkendelsen af problemet sig om ulige udgifter, når fx mange indvandrerfamilier uden forsørgelsesmæssige ressourcer  samtidig vælger at få et stort antal børn ?  Eller måske har de lige læst sygdomstatikkkerne og husker resultatet af intelligensprøverne ved sessionen, og må erkende at den manglende lighed er et voldsomt socialt problem, der vokser med årene? Utilstrækkelige undersøgelser skaber flere spørgsmål. Kirsten Damgaard , kulturpsykolog cand.pæd.psych.

“Jag känner mig trygg på ett enda ställe i Sverige och det är på landsbygden”

Interview med Marcus. Om han taler sandt eller ej, det ved han kun selv:

Om det är någon kategori svenskar som fått betala ett högt pris för politikernas ideologiska villfarelser så är det ungdomarna. Allt våld och otrygghet politikerna fört in i landet har ökat självmordsfrekvensen, drogmissbruket, pillerknaprandet, gatuvåldet, självstympningen etc. Rakryggad har kommit i kontakt med en ung svensk kille som alltför många gånger blivit drabbad fysiskt av fulmedias och politikernas samhällsexperiment som de kallar för ”mångkultur”. I följande intervju får vi ta del av Marcus erfarenhet som utsatt ungdom i ett alltmer splittrat och våldsamt samhälle.Rakryggad blog

Yes, Israel Can Win in Gaza

DR 2 elite-seere på “Kanal Klog”  fik Kurt Strand og Anders Jerichow. Pick and choose:

Israel is significantly weakening Hamas – with Palestinian help.
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK

It seems that most of the West’s news reporters and pundits agree with Islamists everywhere that an Israeli victory in Gaza is impossible. They decry Israel’s defensive attack on Hamas, prophesying an inevitable strengthening of Islamism among Palestinians and a dark future for the Jewish state.

How do our commentators come to this conclusion? They point, most frequently, to Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and echo Hezbollah’s claim that it won a great victory. Indeed, this narrative goes, in launching their rockets at Israel, Hamas leaders were imitating Hezbollah’s winning strategy.

In fact, Hezbollah was thoroughly shocked by the Israeli bombing campaign, and its supporters, who mostly live in southern Lebanon, are not likely to tolerate another wave of destruction caused by another Hezbollah attack. Even the inconclusive Israeli ground actions in Lebanon, which never involved more than six companies (roughly 600 men), resulted in the loss of some 400 Hezbollah fighters in direct face-to-face combat while Israel suffered only 30 casualties.

Of course, none of this prevented the Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah from claiming that he had won a great victory for God. Had his victorious claims actually been true, Israel should have been deterred from attacking Hamas. And by his logic, Israel would have cowered in fear of thousands of more rockets from Hamas, and the even more powerful rockets that Hezbollah would launch in tandem. Nasrallah certainly encouraged Hamas to attack Israel in language that implied he would intervene if a war ensued — a credible promise had he really won a victory in 2006.

But as soon as the fighting started in Gaza, Nasrallah reversed the terms of his declarations — threatening Israel if it attacked Lebanon (which of course nobody in Israel would want to do). When three rockets were fired from inside Lebanon on Thursday, Hezbollah wasted no time assuring the Israelis that it had nothing to do with it, and that it did not even have that type of rocket in their inventory. This is a familiar trope of the Palestinian experience. There is always some extremist leader ready to instigate the Palestinians to fight, implicitly promising his valiant participation — until the fighting begins and the promises are forgotten in fear of Israeli retaliation.

Another familiar Palestinian experience is that the extremists can always prevail politically over the moderates, but in so doing they split Palestinian society. A key metric of this disunity is, in fact, the success of Israel’s current war against Hamas.

Consider: According to Gaza sources, until the ground fighting started some 25% of the 500 dead were innocent civilians. The Israelis claimed that 20% of the casualties from the aerial attack were civilians. Either way, this was an extremely accurate bombing campaign. (Even in the 1991 and 2003 U.S. air campaigns against Iraq, when most of the bombs were already precision-guided, gross targeting errors killed many civilians.)

A targeting accuracy of 75% — by the lowest estimate — cannot have been merely obtained by overhead photography from satellites or reconnaissance aircraft, because few Hamas objectives were classic “high-contrast” targets such as bunkers or headquarters. Most targets were small groups of people in nondescript civilian vehicles that blend in with traffic, or inside unremarkable buildings. Nor could telephone intercepts have yielded much intelligence, because all Palestinians know that the Israelis have long combined voice recognition with cellular-grid location in order to aim missiles very accurately at single vehicles in traffic, or even at individuals standing about with their cellphones switched off.

So how did Israel do it? The only possible explanation is that people in Gaza have been informing the Israelis exactly where Hamas fighters and leaders are hiding, and where weapons are stored. No doubt some informers are merely corrupt, paid agents earning a living. But others must choose to provide intelligence because they oppose Hamas, whose extremism inflicts poverty, suffering and now death on the civilian population for the sake of launching mostly ineffectual rockets into Israel. Hamas completely disregards the day-to-day welfare of all Gazans in order to pursue its millenarian vision of an Islamic Palestine.

Some in Gaza must also resent Iran’s role in instigating the barrage of rockets fired on Israel. And all must know that the longer-range rockets are supplied by Iran along with money for Hamas leaders, while ordinary Palestinians languish in poverty. Senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan, killed on Jan. 1, was a poorly paid academic, yet he died with his four wives and 10 of his children in spacious quarters. He obviously had enough money to heed the Quranic injunction against marrying more wives than one can afford. That too must arouse bitter opposition among poor Palestinian civilians, inducing some to help Israel target Hamas. Perhaps these informers include Fatah members, further antagonized by persecution. Last week alone, some 50 were reportedly tortured by Hamas.

Hamas won the 2006 election because it was the only available alternative when a majority of voters were disgusted by Fatah’s blatant corruption. Since then, many nonfundamentalist Palestinians have been oppressed by the puritanical prohibitions imposed by Hamas, while all Gazans have been greatly impoverished.

There is no evidence that support for Fatah has therefore increased, or that its surviving leaders could still rally their followers. This reality sets an upper limit on what Israel can achieve by ground combat — it cannot change the regime.

What Israel can do is weaken Hamas further in its current ground operations by raiding targets that cannot be attacked from the air — typically because they are in the basements of crowded apartment buildings — and by engaging Hamas gunmen in direct combat. Simply reducing the combat strength of Hamas is crucial, as it was in 2006 against Hezbollah, because while many like to parade dressed in the robes of martyrs, when there is actual fighting enthusiasm rapidly wanes.

With few exceptions, Israeli ground forces are not advancing frontally but are instead mounting a multiplicity of raids. If their target intelligence remains as good as it was during the air attack, they will run out of targets in a matter of days. That is when a cease-fire with credible monitoring would be possible and desirable for both sides as the only alternative to renewed occupation.

Hamas will claim a win no matter what happens, but then so did Hezbollah in 2006. And yet, for the most part, Hezbollah remains immobile and the Israeli northern border with Lebanon remains quiet. If Israel can achieve the same with Hamas in Gaza, it would be a significant victory.

Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of “Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace” (Belknap, 2002).  Wall Street Journal