2
jun
Seneste opdatering: 3/6-11 kl. 0146
13 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

Egyptian Shaykh: Jihad Is Solution to Muslims’ Financial Problems ; Raymond Ibrahim: Raped and Ransacked in the Muslim World

Kommissærer i krisetid

EUROCRATS spent €7.5m (£6.6m) [56 millioner danske kroner] on private jets in four years and €20,000 on gifts during 2008-2010, including Tiffany jewellery and fountain pens, according to data collected by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism
The figures, which were mostly obtained via parliamentary questions asked by independent Austrian MEP Martin Ehrehauser, also show that that European Commission president José Manuel Barroso racked up a €28,000 [208.000 dkk] bill during a four-night stay at the New York Peninsula Hotel with eight assistants.
The EC that he runs also blew €300,000 [2.3 mio dkk] on “cocktail parties” in 2009 alone. One event subsidised by EU taxpayers cost €75,000 [560.000 dkk] and promised guests “state-of-the-art technology, challenging art, combined with trendy cocktails, surprising performances and top DJs”.EU expenses include €7.5m on private jets Det hele her: Vin, golf, orkestre, limousiner m.m: EU Commission Expenses: Cocktail parties, private jets, luxury away-days and limousines.

Wilders: Schweiz vælger den engelske “løsning”

Oscar Freysinger er rasende: “Jeg tror jeg boede i et frit land.” Jeg leger med tanken om, hvad der ville ske, hvis nogen inviterede Geert Wilders til Sverige eller måske Norge….

Right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders is not allowed to speak next month in the canton of Valais.Officials in Savièse said right-wing figures could bring unrest to the community, and that applications for protest permits had already been filed.Wilders was invited to speak by Swiss People’s Party member of parliament Oskar Freysinger. Valais commune nixes right-wing guest

En amerikaner i Danmark

Dr. Norman Berdichevsky (Ph.D. i Geografi, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1974) er forfatter, redaktør, forsker, foredragsholder og oversætter fra hebraisk og dansk til engelsk. Han underviste på Århus Katedralskole fra 1980 til 1984, er fast bidragsyder på New English Review og har skrevet utallige bøger om blandt andet islam i Spanien og artikler som f.eks. Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tales, “Matador” and Danish Courage (Foto: Berdichevsky (th.) og hans søn under deres nylige besøg i Danmark.)

WHY I WROTE THESE TWO BOOKS

Norman Berdichevsky (June 2011)
Two New Books out in June/July

A few days ago, I returned from a trip to Denmark where I visited my son and his family. I also made the trip to publicize my new book, An Introduction to Danish Culture (McFarland Publishing) and was interviewed by Tim Anderson of MyDanishtv.com, a weekly internet video program on different aspects of Life in Denmark. The 10 minute interview can be viewed on their website in early June. The book on Denmark will be available on July 5th. just a month after the publication here in the U.S. on June 10th by the New English Review Press of The Left Is Seldom Right.

Why are these two books appearing almost simultaneously and what do they share in common?

They are my answer to the moral crisis that grows ever more ominous and threatening with the conviction of distinguished Danish author Lars Hedegaard of the Danish Free Press Society for exercising the right of free speech in criticizing the reluctance of many Muslim immigrants in Denmark to meaningfully integrate in Danish society and accept responsible citizenship and President Obama’s call for Israel to return to the Auschwitz Cease-Fire lines of 1949-67 as if they qualified for what U.N. Resolution 242 explicitly called secure and defensible borders.

The Danes, as the oldest nation in Europe with the oldest flag, have been subject to a concerted campaign of Leftwing opinion and a multiculturalism that would erase much of their historical past and cultural values. For many of those on the political Left at the time of the Mohammad cartoon affair, Danish culture and society were reduced to the pale stereotypes and clichés of socialism, cradle to the grave security, football, pornography, Hamlet, pigs, dairy cattle, beer and the inevitable charges of “racism.”

Denmark’s contribution to science, engineering, seafaring, shipping, exploration, literature, philosophy, music, art, the theatre, the cinema, dance, sports, agriculture, architecture, its record on human rights, democratic institutions, and humanistic traditions deserve to be much more widely known, especially in the wake of the negative publicity spread by the international media following the Muhammad-Cartoon affair that presented a distorted view of Danish society and ignored its centuries-old respect for democracy and tolerance.

I am an American who lived in Aarhus, Denmark from 1980-1988, a stone’s throw away from the headquarters of the now world famous newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and got to learn firsthand about the Danish folk character and the country’s long history. Denmark has more than once faced the dilemma of standing alone to uphold fundamental democratic and humanitarian principles against overwhelmingly powerful political, military and economic interests.

What was so shocking about the the cartoon crisis was the general ignorance in the United States and even in Western Europe regarding Denmark. It was a bitter pill to swallow for many Danes who saw their country turned into a pariah state in 2006 by worldwide demonstrations and violence in Muslim countries over the cartoons just as Israel had been by the JIHAD GENIE that will continue to run amok (an old Danish expression) and needs to be put back in the bottle. Yesterday, Israel, Today, Denmark ……. tomorrow the World! Nevertheless, the full cost of the Muslim boycott of Danish goods and services was far less than first feared and more than made up by a spontaneous “Buy Danish” campaign that was wholly the initiative of individuals and owed nothing to any formal support or statement by Denmark’s “allies” in NATO and among Western heads of state.

The record needs to be set straight and proclaimed loudly and strongly. My familiarity and appreciation of Denmark, family connections, its people, culture, language, traditions and way of life were gained through first-hand knowledge of Danes I am proud to call my friends, many years residence in the country and a profound respect, admiration and sense of obligation to acquaint my fellow Americans and others with a realistic picture of what I learned. I also wrote the book as a personal testimonial to my deep sense of gratitude towards the Danish people for their conduct during World War II and especially for the aid and comfort they provided to their Jewish fellow citizens.

I had seen two Danish films at the old Thalia movie theater on Broadway and 95th Street and they had made an enormous impression on me – Dreyer’s “Ordet” (The Word) based on the play by pastor and World War II resistance hero Kaj Munk and Ditte-Menneskebarn (Ditte-Child of Humanity) based on the book by the great proletarian writer Martin Andersen Nexø. They intrigued me – how did these writers – much like Hans Christian Andersen use the tiny canvas of their small country and “minor language” (about the same number of speakers as Hebrew) to paint such a great universal work?

Hans Christian Andersen wrote a tale in 1872 “The Most Incredible Thing” that was his response to a question that would torment other authors and intellectuals in his lifetime and during the 20th century – how to deal with the problem of evil and imminent threats to our civilization following the war of aggression against Denmark by Prussia and Austria in 1864 that was launched under the banner of “self-determination” for the Schleswig-Holsteiners (very much along the lines of the Sudetens and Palestinians). It is decidedly not a fairy tale.

Remarkably, the great Danish “fairy story teller” from ‘oh so peaceful and tranquil Denmark’ belongs to those writers who refused to be cowed by totalitarian oppression. His story, “The Most Incredible Thing,” turned out to be a prescient warning to future generations. It was taken up by the Danish Resistance Movement that had struggled during the early years of German occupation (1940-42) to rally support for active sabotage and an end to the government’s policy of appeasement. Opposing appeasement, a Danish resistance movement took shape. Among those active was a group of scholars who encouraged and helped publish new editions of “The Most Incredible Thing” with illustrations that were an open call to resist the occupation and vindicate Andersen’s belief that, in the face of pervasive, aggressive, violent evil, only eternal vigilance, armed preparedness and vigorous, unreserved military action are the only means to ensure the survival of civilization.

In the 1942 Danish publication of “The Most Incredible Thing,” the final picture portrays the watchman who strikes down the evil lout as a Jewish rabbi with hat and beard standing above the fallen semi-naked Aryan-looking “muscle man” who is pinned to the floor by the twin tables of the Ten Commandments inscribed with Hebrew letters and surrounded by a crowd of ordinary Danes in 1940s dress.

Andersen would undoubtedly have been pleased that his story about resistance to evil and the faith he had in the Judeo-Christian values of our civilization would inspire his countrymen in World War II at a time when opportunists and those who had favored a policy of appeasement for Denmark preached that resistance was hopeless. The moral of the story is just as true today and it has enabled both Denmark and Israel to survive and thrive. It is no accident these two nations are the favored targets of extremist Islamic hatred for their humanitarian societies.

Numerous complaints from the current leaders of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan bemoan any unintentional civilian casualty that may possibly have been caused by our forces struggling to protect their regimes from wanton terrorism. At the close of World War II, one of the worst accidents of the Allied bombing campaign against the German occupation forces took place in Copenhagen at the “French School,” an orphanage and the surrounding residential quarter. The damage occurred as the result of one of the British bombers that crashed during the execution of a spectacular and successful RAF low level bombing missions – the destruction of Gestapo Headquarters in the Shell Building, allowing many Danish Resistance fighters who were imprisoned on the upper level of the building to escape.

On March 21, 1945 at noon, 46 Mosquito bombers and fighter aircraft attacked Shell House with precision bombing that destroyed the lower floors of the building. More than 100 Germans and Danish collaborators were killed in the attack. Leading members of the Resistance located on the roof level and on the two floors below managed to escape in the chaos. This magnificent action that lifted Danish morale across the country was marred by the unfortunate accident of “collateral damage.” One of the low flying British aircraft unfortunately struck a signal tower on the nearby railway line. The resulting fire was mistaken by other attacking aircraft as the target and they dropped their bombs on the school. 112 Danes were killed in the conflagration that engulfed the orphanage and surrounding residential buildings, among them more than 80 children.

In spite of the terrible tragedy, the attack had a galvanizing effect that signaled to the entire country that Denmark and the Danish Resistance were valued allies who were not forgotten. It also led to a significant and immediate drop in the number of collaborators who had been shown proof that the Allied cause was triumphant and could reach them in their most protected lair. This is what we in the U.S. and U.K. have forgotten – reliable allies are only those with whom we share fundamental values – in a nation with a thousand years of history behind it such as Denmark. It is also a dramatic example of why true allies understand that in spite of the grief, such accidents and incidents should not divide us and must not be the occasion for pathetic hand wringing and calls for “investigations” (that give aid and comfort to our mortal enemies) but accepted as part of the price for victory.

The Moral Confusion of the ‘Left’

Many in our generation no longer distinguish between right and wrong (see Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong, Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values; Three Rivers Press, New York, 2003) and have accepted a totally false dichotomy in the reigning political equations favored portrayed by the media and many of our leading intellectuals and cultural gurus that that somehow Left is to be equated with “liberal” (i.e. tolerant and cosmopolitan) views and Right signifies reaction, intolerance, racism and antisemitism. I wrote “The Left is Seldom Right to express this hideous distortion of this Orwellian 1984 style world in which Two legs=bad, Four legs = good.

The political terms “Right” and” Left” have become banal and stale clichés which are often misleading guides that offer no clear indication about intentions, motivations and conflicting policy choices of political personalities and parties under changing circumstances. Both partisan political hacks and educated citizens who should know better use them as synonyms for the good guys and bad guys yet we know that “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” I wrote ‘The Left is Seldom Right’ to………

1. Document cases that a considerable segment of the American public is misled by the use of the terms “RIGHT vs. LEFT,” which are cliché ridden, and often erroneous in their presentation of the most essential relevant facts and the conclusions drawn. This certainly includes the prevailing Leftwing criticism of Israel’s right to defend itself and the right of free speech in Denmark and the demand that immigrants conform to the prevailing legal and moral codes of the country.

2. To demonstrate that it is primarily the Political Left that has a vested interest in the continued use of this terminology due to the considerable inroads made by the liberal media on public opinion. Many political pundits have drawn on the prestige of major writers and Hollywood celebrities whose work was shaped by a critical view of American culture as the epitome of alienation, hypocrisy and crass materialism in modern society. Their assumptions are that other cultures and societies are more authentic, “holistic,” integral and devoted to a sense of solidarity and community. These views have been reinforced in popular culture, especially in film and popular song.

3. To show that antisemitism was not inherently a part of many nationalist “right-wing” movements and that it is generated today overwhelmingly from the Far Left under the encouragement of the wealth and power of militant Islam.

Sixty years after its founding, Israel has become an outcast among the nations and the Jews a pariah people once again. How did this occur? From darling of the Left to pariah state, subject to continual venomous attacks coming from those who consider themselves “progressive“ and “morally sensitive,“ i.e. the mainline churches, university faculties clamoring to boycott and “disinvest“ from Israeli owned companies, the media elite and those on the Left side of the political spectrum.

The events over the past few years in Denmark and President Obama’s foreign affairs policies are our modern equivalent of the appeasement agreement at Munich in 1938 that sealed the destruction of Czechoslovakia, the only democracy in Eastern Europe, a country compelled to bow before the all powerful ruse of “self-determination” for a recalcitrant and hostile German minority. Instead of referring to the minority as Germans, the preferred term in the Western press was the politically correct mantra of “Sudetens” as if they were not part of a powerful and aggressive German nationalism steered by Hitler, akin to the ocean of crocodile tears shed for the “Palestinians” anxious to dismember the State of Israel with the full backing of the Arab world and Muslim ummah.

The Danish philosopher Andreas Simonsen, remarked on the great respect most Jews feel towards the past, old friends and their parents as well as the long historical memory of nationhood and the many religious obligations and commemorative holidays. This is what he termed the Jewish ability “to carry their past with themselves and be nourished by it.” It is the best definition of Zionism, and an essential characteristic of pride and self respect that is now completely out of tune with most of contemporary culture and its anti-historical attitude.

According to Simonsen, “Jews live because they remember, anti-Semitism lives because people forget,” and “the better people remember their past and are able to integrate it with their appreciation of life, the better they are able to develop their intellect, humanity and vitality.”

Whatever the differences between secular and religious Israelis, they pale before the monumental differences that separate life in the State of Israel with all its inherent promises, risks and dangers from the Diaspora’s ultra idealized concerns and sensibilities. What is so shocking when it comes to the issue of foreign policy affairs, is that hardly any “progressive” critic of Israel is ready to admit the impeccable credentials Israel earned in 1948 in a struggle against the most reactionary elements in the Arab world and endorsed by the entirety of what was then called “enlightened public opinion,” above all, by the political Left.[1]

They have been seduced by the onslaught of falsified and selective history that has been so frequently transmitted by the media. Some prominent American Jews, particularly among those who cannot escape the narcotic-like trance they have inherited as “progressives” and are essentially secular and ultra-critical of capitalism and American society with its underlying Christian values, have developed a new kind of psychological self-hatred to exhibit a disassociation from the State of Israel and their religious heritage. They are upset over the close Israeli-American friendship and wish to be absolved from the heinous charge that they once may have actually subscribed to a sense of Jewish solidarity when that meant only solidarity with victimhood – the Jews as eternal martyrs.

The anti-Israel mantra they hear on all sides from the political Left and their fellow “progressives” has become a substitute for historical truth. They are the organizers and members of the newly founded J-Street that accepts hook, line and sinker the Obama Party Line that people like the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas are peace partners, notwithstanding the fact that his Ph.D. dissertation denies the Holocaust and refuses to acknowledge that Israel can define itself as a Jewish State. J Street has called on the Treasury department to investigate any Jewish or Christian charity that in any way aids Jews who live in any part of “Palestine” across the Green Line Cease Fire Lines of 1949, all the while demanding a Judenrein Palestine.

Its two-faced approach is all the more grotesque given its concerns and hand-wringing over the lack of progress towards the creation of a 23rd independent Arab state while pooh-poohing an existential threat to Israel from Iran, its mullah thugocracy and its repeated vows to wipe the country off the face of the map. It has sparked the formation of Z-Street by those Jews who realize that J-Street are bagmen for the Democratic Party and that Obama has been a colossal fraud with the Jewish vote in his pocket.

Obama’s call to return to the Auschwitz Cease Fire Lines prior to June 5, 1967 and his delirious infatuation with the so called Arab Spring after refusing to lift a finger or express outrage during the mass demonstrations in Iran against the theocratic mullah state is the result of a common delusion in the West that everything must be done to placate ‘the Arab Street’ (i.e, mob rule in Muslim countries). This attitude confronts both Israel and Denmark that have had to face similar challenges in order to simply exist or maintain their democratic way of life and essential rights.

It is my fervent hope that many readers, including some who have accepted that “The Left is Always Right”, or who know little about Denmark, will have much to ponder.

[1] See ‘The Most Widely Believed Political Myth, What America Did for Israel in 1948 -NOTHING” New English Review, (December, 2007

 

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

  • PK

    En amerikaner i Danmark sagde til mig om København :”Hvilken by. Du kan gå baglæns med
    bind for øjne gennem byen og der vil ikke ske dig noget.”
    Sagt på Vingården i indre by ca. 1967-68.
    Det gjorde stort indtryk på mig , denne beskrivelse af min hovedstad.
    Jeg er fra 1943 og var så småt begyndt at komme ud i den store verden, og
    havde haft et par episoder i udlandet , hvor pulsen kom højt op.
    Vi hører jo tit udsagnet, at man ønsker det gamle Danmark tilbage.
    Så tænker jeg på hvad dennne amerikaner sagde.

    Vingården var et skønt Jazz sted. Musik ,øl m.m.

  • Tim

    Gøre som os eller forlade os
    Vi skal ikke prøve at analysere og forstå 57 versioner af islam eller dens 13 sharia samlinger. Det er ikke for os at sige til muslimer, hvor der skal laves om på deres kultur og religion. Vi skal blot sige til alle muslimer uanset hvor de kommer fra, at det er ikke os, som skal indrettes efter deres ønsker om ændringer. Det er dem selv, som SKAL indrette sig efter vores kultur, skikke og værdier. Nul særbehandling, punktum. Hele det muslimske paradigme er: Dem mod os.
    Muslimer skal ikke have end moske før….
    Vi skal ikke røre en FINGER, før muslimer har ændret Islam til at tolerere andre end dem selv, ligestilling mellem kønnene, fjernet Sharia lovgivningen, lader vantro komme til Medina og Mekka, ændrer Islam og koranen så de ikke HADER de vantro, fjern “dawa”, “sharia” og “jihad” fra koranen, gifter sig ikke med andre end muslimer, lader muslimske piger blive som vestlige piger og lade dem få deres seksuelle frigørelse, kristne og jøder er ikke som aber og grise, dræber kristne og brænder kirker i muslimske lande, slår dem der forlader Islam ihjel, osv. FØR DER IKKE SKER NOGLE ÆNDRINGER HOS MUSLIMER SKAL VI IKKE RØRE EN FINGER. Vi venter…..hvad er muslimernes næste træk? Tør de ligge pres på den Saudiske konge, eller er de bare kyllinger? Vi er anti jihad, vi er anti sharia og vi er anti dawa og anti apostates mord.
    Og hvis de endelig får en moske, skal kønnene ikke separeres og der skal ikke være minerater, og det skal være udelukkende på DANSK, men det ligger 20-100 år ude i fremtiden.
    Det er muslimske unge der vil have moskeer, mens vores unge ikke kunne drømme om at bygge flere kirker. Det viser deres indoktrinering/hjernevaskning fra barns ben, som man har fået fra deres fundamentalistiske forældre. Hvis de vil fortsætte denne stil må de tage til Mellemøsten, vi gider ikke den levemåde heroppe!
    De virkelige afgørende punkter for at Islam skal kunne begå sig i en global verden er at man ikke tager unge ind og indoktrinerer dem/hjernevasker dem fra barns ben i Koranen og Muhammed, giver piger uddannelsesfrihed uden pres, giver piger deres seksuelle frigørelse så de bliver nogenlunde som vestlige, at man fjerner det islamiske kulturelle pres hos unge i Islamiske kredse, gør op med ære og skam traditioner i Islam samt andre traditioner der har negativ formål, og ikke giver individet frihed. OG SÅ STOP MED AT TAGE KORANEN OG DEN RELIGION/IDEOLOGI SÅ SERIØST!
    Her kan salafister, wahabister, hizb ut tahrir, islamister, islamisk trossamfund, fundamentalister der ikke kan tage afstand fra stening og lignende godt skride fra Danmark. Samt dem der tager bogen alvorligt og ikke kan tåle at Muhammed bliver tegnet eller de der deler verden op i de troende samt de vantro, I har INTET at gøre i dette land. Og tro mig der er MANGE der sætter ummahen og deres muslimske religiøse identitet større end dansk nationalitet.

  • Tim

    SWEDEN WAKE UP!!!

  • Mette

    Forleden læste jeg, at Herman van Rompuy udtalte, at “det arabiske forår” har vist, at islam og demokrati kan forenes. Og så er det, at man spørger sig selv, om han tror, at vi er meget dumme og uvidende.

    I det hele taget er der grund til at undre sig over over, hvad pokker, der foregår i EU og Nato, og det funderede korrespondent i Mellemøsten Allan Sørensen også over i lederen i KD i går:

    http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/420967:Leder–Gaddafi-for-Assa d

    Jeg kan godt forstå, at Hillary Clinton i den sidste tid har lignet en hængt kat. Er politikerne monstro i gang med et gigantisk tilbagetog fra både Mellemøsten og Afghanistan, og lader de blot, som om de tror på det forsømte forår?

    Presser man måske Israel, eller opgiver man at støtte Israel? Er USA af økonomiske grunde nødt til at opgive?

    Men hvorfor dog så hidsige efter at involvere os i Libyen, at vi måske endda har elitesoldater og agenter dernede – stik imod FN-resolutionen?

    • Ja, det sagde han: EU”s Van Rompuy says no contradiction between Islam and democracy – ham von Rumpe Pøj.

      after the meeting, Van Rompuy said: “let us not forget history. It is on the march in North Africa and the Arab world.” “These revolutions are not the work of fanatics or extremists. On the contrary they prove that there is no contradiction between Islam and Democracy, ” he stressed.

      Det er måske en lidt præmatur slutning. I Egypten er det i al fald “Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss” efter alt hvad jeg ser og hører. Men Rumpe Pøj hører noget andet og sender vores milliarder derned. Han er måske præsident, men han er ikke min præsident.

      Lad os høre den igen, et af min kollegas yndlingsnumre.

      • Mette

        Nogen bliver i hvert fald narret. Spørgsmålet er vel snarere hvor mange?

        LOL, sikke et kropssprog!

  • T. Snorrason

    Herman van Rompuy er en lille idiot, og af samme årsag præsident for EU.
    Obamas og EUs/Natos militære indgriben i Libyen er mere uforståelig.
    Daffy er vel lettere gal, men hans styre ikke værre end så mange andre i Mellem-Østen.
    Der finder et væbnet oprør sted mod Daffy, især af stammer, som er mod Daffys stamme, fra et område der er kendt som leverandør af Alkayda soldater.
    Selvfølgelig forsøger Daffy, som landets hersker, at slå et sådant oprør ned, og den slags kan ikke ske med blot milde ord.
    Ingen har set beviser for de påståede massemord på civilbefolkningen, alligevel ryger USA og NATO straks ind med højteknologisk våbenmagt og starter på at smadre et lille, dårligt udrustet lands militær – og infrastruktur.
    Så let som ingenting kunne en af de større efterretningstjenester have myrdet Daffy, hurtigt og uden større omkostninger, hvis man blot ville have ham væk.

    USA skylder for Lockerbie, England for støtte til IRA.
    Saudierne skylder for et forsøg på at vælte kongen dér, og andre lande i Mellemøsten har sikkert også noget, de gerne vil sige tak for på grund af Daffys mangeårige støtte til udtallige oprørsgrupper.
    Hvad Danmark skylder for, er lidt uklart.

    Italien derimod skylder vel kun tak til Daffy for at bremse strømmen af økonomiske flygtninge fra Nord-Afrika, og Berlusconi personligt er vel glad for at have lært selskabslegen Bunga-Bunga.
    Spørgsmålet er så, hvorfor nu? og hvad er Obamas egentlige mål?
    Det amerikanske forsvar har advaret om, at Alkayda er involveret.
    At der ikke kommer “demokrati” i Mellemøsten på grund af en stribe massedemonstrationer, kan enhver sige sig selv.
    Demokrati og islam kan ikke forenes under nogen omstændigheder.

    Der kommer derimod i stedet flere shariastyrede stater, idet det ikke er islam befolkningen har rejst sig imod, men alene deres egne elendinge personlige forhold, arbejdsløshed osv. Altsammen i realiteten på grund af islam, men det fatter de ikke.

    Med Obamas udspil/krav til Israel om at rykke tilbage til uforsvarlige grænser, og dermed sikre dets udslettelse samt nu indgriben alene i Libyen, men feks. ikke i Bahrain (omkring Syrien er der sikkert en deal med Rusland, som nævnt ovenfor), kunne mere tyde på, at Obama arbejder på saudiernes vegne – og under alle omstændigheder ikke til USAs fordel.

  • Mette

    Måske tænker vi alt for små. Det kan jo også være, at vores “humanisme” er et skalkeskjul for, at NATO er i færd med at skaffe sig nogle militærstrategiske fordele for at forhindre, at andre får det.

    Du har jo sikkert ret, Snorrason, Gaddafi kunne forlængst have været udryddet, hvis det var det, man ville, og han har jo ikke gjort andet, end han skulle for at beskytte sit regime. Massakrerne har vi aldrig set dokumentation for.Krigen har fra første færd virket underlig og kunstig, som om man i forvejen stod på spring og bare manglede et påskud.

    Måske er det så enkelt, at NATO ikke vil risikere en sammenhængende stribe af fjendtlige islamiske lande fra Tyrkiet over Levanten og Egypten til og med Marokko. Måske ønsker man at skyde en kile ind i Afrika og har forlængst forstået, hvor stærkt Det Muslimske Broderskab står. Professor Mehdi Mozaffari på Statskundskab i Aarhus sagde tidligere på året noget i retning af, at hvis Egyptens styre faldt, ville vi snart have Broderskabet fra Atlanterhavet til det Kaspiske hav. Den trojanske hest er jo også på plads.

    • T. Snorrason

      Hvis det er tilfældet at man vil placere baser i Libyen, er det næppe den rigtige måde at gøre det på.
      Nej, Libyen bliver en sharia-stat, når Daffy er fældet.
      Daffy var egentlig eneste garant mod dette, efter Ægypten er faldet.

      • Mette

        Ja, og som du selv skrev, kunne man sagtens have fået krammet på ham. Men hvorfor skulle man gøre det, så længe hans hær kæmper mod “demokraterne”. Siden kan man holde vinderen i en kort snor. Et eller andet sært er der i hvert fald i gang.

        • T. Snorrason

          Jeg tror, det er meget værre.
          NATO er en forsvarsalliance mellem USA, Canada og Europa, og har intet at gøre i Libyen på nuværende grundlag.
          USA startede op og har nu trukket sig, hvorfor dog?
          Man kan aldrig vinde en krig fra luften, der skal bajonetter på landjorden, hvis man vil vinde. Det er gammel lærdom.
          Altså kan Europa hurtigt blive rodet ind i en landkrig i et islamisk land i Nordafrika.
          Hvorfor dog?

  • Mette

    Måske fordi man har indset, at man er nødt til at hjælpe Daffy & sønner af militærstrategiske grunde, men ikke mener at kunne sige det højt. Det kan have været årsagen til, at NATO straks fik opbakning fra flere muslimske stater, hvor regenterne også frygter et “demokratisk” islamisk megastyre. Men man ønsker desuden at stække og styre Daffyerne.

    Det er godt nok et risikabelt spil, hvis det forholder sig sådan, men det ville forklare alle de påfaldende enfoldige udtalelser fra folk, der burde vide bedre, fx Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Jeg kan ikke huske, om det var departementschefen i vort udenrigsministerium, det kan have været en anden fremtrædende ansat i ministeriet, der meget hurtigt tog til Nordafrika og kom tilbage og berettede så begejstret om “foråret”, at jeg tog mig til hovedet.

    Fronten er blevet flyttet fra Afghanistan til Libyen, og man blæser på FN-resolutionen. Hvis jeg har ret, er Danmark allerede deltager i en måske permanent krig i Nordafrika, som ikke mere er en “terrorkrig”, men første fase af noget langt større. Set fra USA’s side kan der være tale om at få europæerne til at forstå, at vi må være mere aktive for at forsvare egne interesser.

    Men amerikanerne er der nu nok alligevel,og Osama bin Ladens endeligt kan være blevet timet med Libyenkrigen.

  • Mette