Hodjanernes Blog

2 maj 2006

En parafrase over Mahatma Ghandi

Filed under: Filosofi, Historie, Hodja, Islam, Muslim World, Politisk korrekte, Terrorism — Hodja @ 14:29

Hvad mener du om islamisk civilisation?

Ja jeg mener, det ville være en meget god ide.

(When asked by a British journalist what he thought of “Western civilization,” Gandhi said, “I think it would be a very good idea.”)

Danmark har besøg af ‘The Tipton Three’ og DDR-P1 sluger deres historie råt

Rhuhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal og Shafiq Rasul tager angiveligt til Pakistan for at deltage i et bryllup, under besøget får de en stærk lyst til at besøge taliban i Afghanistan, hvor de måske besøger Osama bin Laden.

TIPTON3.jpg P1’s drenge

Deres besøg falder tilfældigvis sammen med USA’s invasion og de tilbageholdes og overføres til Guantanamo, hvor de opholder sig i over 2 år.

Da de bliver løsladt, påstår de, at de er blevet tortureret.

DR-P1 interviewer en af dem her til morgen, og stiller sig til rådighed for påstandene med total ukritisk mikrofonholderi. Det er påfaldende, at engelske medier kalder dem for ‘unge mænd’, medens P1 konsekvent igennem interviewet kalder dem for ‘drenge’.

TIPTON.jpg Rasul

Der er mange spørgsmål P1 kunne have stillet (her fra Daily Ablution):

At this point, it’s worth recalling a Daily Telegraph piece from last year, which reminds us that:

The men’s claim that they were tortured at Guantanamo should also be set in the context of the al-Qa’eda training manual discovered during a raid in Manchester a couple of years ago. Lesson 18 of that manual, whose authenticity has not been questioned, emphatically states, under the heading ‘Prison and Detention Centres’, that, when arrested, members of al-Qa’eda ‘must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security investigators. [They must] complain to the court of mistreatment while in prison’. That is not, of course, proof that the Britons were not tortured in Guantanamo. But it ought to encourage some doubts about uncritically accepting that they were – which seems to be the attitude adopted by most of the media.

An attitude that, as we see, seems only to be strengthening – a fact which leads me to ask: Why is it that so many supposedly sophisticated, critical people simply accept these patently suspect claims of mistreatment without so much the hint of a question?

Jeg så desværre ikke TV-avisen 19.30 iaften, men P1’s amatørjournalistik gentog sig i TV-avisen klokken 21,hvor der heller ikke blev stillet et eneste kritisk spørgsmål til ‘drengene’, hvis alder iøvrigt blev opgivet til 29-25-24 år.

Uddrag fra kommentarerne til Scotts postings – her er der da noget at være kritisk journalist overfor:

“As for the Tipton Three I am sick of the soft treatment they get. If they were tortured that is entirely reprehensible. I suspect they were tortured. However, the focus in interveiws should be much more on what they were up to, did they support 9/11, 7/7 etc. I heard one asked today on the radio what his view of the Taliban regime was. But he was allowed to soft soap his way out of that. For instance he talked about how the Taliban had brought peace to the land after civil strife as though only Taliban regimes can ever create civil peace.”

“On Newsnight Review David Aaronovitch asked why, nowhere in the programme, was it mentioned that 1. the mosque these guys “visited” happens to be the centre of Jihadist recruitment in the region and 2. the 3 got involved a week after fighting had started ie they knew what they were getting into. An embarrassed silence followed.”

Det er også interessant, at en af ‘drengene’ tidligere har udtalt:

“An indignant Guardian account (redundantly headed “Camp Delta Briton claims racial abuse – Racial abuse claim by Briton“) notes that:

“According to his elder brother Habib, he wrote: ‘Everything’s OK in Guantanamo. It’s just that sometimes some of the guards are OK with us, and some are saying things to us, calling us names like camel-rider and raghead’.”

It would be interesting to hear the reactions of the likes of Mr. Sutcliffe to the assertion by one of the heroes of The Road to Guantanamo, apparently made just three or four months before his release, that, apart from some schoolyard name-calling, “everything’s OK in Guantanamo“.

Hvorfor gik Bill Clinton ud i medierne og kritiserede Danmark under Muhammed krisen?

Og hvorfor var det så svært for USA at støtte Danmark under krisen? Måske finder man svaret her? 

Feeding at Saudis’ trough Former U.S. envoys lobby for kingdom

I august 2002 var en delegation fra USA’s kongres i Saudi Arabien. Under besøget spurgte det republikanske kongresmedlem Mike Rogers den amerikanske ambassadør i Saudi Robert Jordan, om han ville være den første ambassadør, som efter at have udstået sin ambassadørtjeneste IKKE ville lade sig ansætte af Saudierne. Dette ville ambassadøren ikke love.

I 2003 lod Jordan sig ansætte af den Saudiske kongefamilie og blev herved en nyt medlem af den lange liste af forhenværende ambassadører og embedsmænd, som arbejder direkte og indirekte for Saudi Arabien. Rogers har senere foreslået lovgivning mod, at embedsmænd repræsenterer fremmede regeringer i 4 år efter afgangen.

Det ville reelt være sensationelt, hvis højtstående amerikanske embedsmænd i Mellemøsten IKKe lader sig forgylde af Saudierne og andre despoter.

Washington formelig vrimler med sådanne personer. I særdeleshed i tænke-tanke der har med Mellemøsten at gøre – som for eksempel The Middle East Institute, som er finansieret af Saudierne.

Forhenværende ambassadør i Saudi Arabien leder instituttet – Wyche Fowler. Edward Walker, præsident for instituttet, var ambassadør i Israel, Ægypten og de forende Arabiske Emirater. Forhenværende ambassadør i de Forende Arabiske  Emirater og vice assisterende sekretær for Nær Østen David Mack er instituttets vice præsident. Også ansat ved instituttet er Richard Parker, forhenværende ambassadør i Algeriet, Libanon og Marocco og Michael Sterner, forhenværende ambassadør i de forende Arabiske Emirater.

Chas. Freeman Jr., en anden tidligere ambassadør i kongeriget, er præsident for det Saudi-støttede Middle East Policy Council. En anden ambassadør, Walter Cutler, leder det Saudi-støttede Meridian International Center.

Den tidligere Saudiske ambassadør i Washington Prins Bandar bin Sultan blev for nogle år siden citeret i Washington Post  “Hvis rygtet går, at Saudierne tager sig af sine venner, når de forladet embedet, ville du blive forbavset over, hvor meget bedre venner du har, når de netop indtræder i embedet.”

Fra San Francisco Chronicle Dette gælder også for Bill Clinton. Daily Dish skriver: “Former President Clinton, however, is praising Dubai as an enlightened Arab nation and “a critical ally in the war on terror.” Does Bill have a less than altruistic reason to be pro-Dubai? Yesterday I asked his office if he helped recruit Dubai into a potentially lucrative partnership with Democratic fund-raiser Ron Burkle‘s private investment firm, Yucaipa.

The former President is a frequent visitor to Dubai, possibly on Burkle’s 757 jet, is an occasional high-dollar lecturer there ($300,000 for a single speech), and serves on Yucaipa’s board of directors.” How much has Madeleine Albright of “The Albright Group” received for her lobbying on behalf of the Arabs of Dubai?  

How much money have all kinds of people received, in payment for their usefulness in ensuring the continuation of the global Jihad?

These are traitors. They deserve to be named and exposed. They include a great many people in official Washington. So what? They deserve to be named and exposed — with Democrats in Congress not trying to protect Democrats, and Republicans not trying to protect Republicans.

Since OPEC oil wealth will continue to gush, we need to know the ways in which it is used to penetrate and influence our government, our media, our universities. It is not merely what has happened in the past.

That army of apologists for and promoters of Saudi Arabia prevented, for more than 30 years, the putting into place of an energy policy that, instead of relying idiotically on our “staunch ally” Saudi Arabia for its supposed “moderation” in oil pricing, would have sensibly been based on a steady rise in gasoline taxes, and on other uses of oil, and on allocation of all such taxes to subsidies for mass transit, the building of newer, and safer, nuclear power plants, and the widespread introduction of solar and wind energy.”

Og det var så USA.

Hvilke Europæiske politikere og embedsmænd er på olielandenes lønningslister? EU-politikere? Danske? Selvfølgelig spiller araberne på flere heste så europæerne er naturligvis med. Hvad er prisen? Noget af prisen er klart EAD, anti-zionisme og dhimmitude. Og medierne plejer jo ellers at sige, at USA’s politikere er i lommerne på jøderne.

Måske er det medierne der er i lommerne på araberne?Angående EAD (Euro Arab Dialogue): “The arab states contributed vast sums to universities, centers for islamic studies, international communication agencies, and private and governmental organizations in order to win over world opinion”

Kilde: Bat Ye’or; Eurabia, The Euro-Arab Axis. Side 154.

Jeg kommer til at tænke på Lenin, der sagde: “En kapitalist vil med glæde sælge dig det reb, du vil hænge ham i.”

Mere badetøj

Filed under: Billeder/Pictures, Indvandring, Islam, Muslim World — Hodja @ 01:02

Stødte lige på dette her:

monacca.jpg

Men hov folkens – nu skal I ikke grine – det er jo meget praktisk, hvis det regner den dag man skal bade i Saudi.

Flere på Hasema