11 augusti 2009

Slut på terrorism

USA är inte längre i ett "krig mot terrorismen." Vi slåss inte heller mot "jihadister" eller ägnar oss åt ett "globalt krig."

Homeland Security har förklarat att dessa termer, som skapades under George W. Bush administration, är oacceptabla.
Det förs nu enbart ett "krig mot al-Qaida" och dess våldsamma extremistiska allierade, sade chefen för Homeland Security, John Brennan.

Att säga att USA kämpar mot "jihadister" är felaktigt, säger Brennan, eftersom det är att "legitimera jihad. " Jihad innebär att rena sig själv eller att föra en helig kamp för ett moraliskt mål" och vi riskerar att ge dessa mördare den religiösa legitimitet som de så desperat försöker få, men inte på något sätt förtjänar. "
"Värre är att det riskerar att förstärka tanken att USA på något sätt är i krig med islam"

Redan i april i år förklarade Homeland Securitys nya sekreterare Janet Napolitano för Kongressen att terrorism existerar inte, det är i stället "en katastrof orsakad av människor."
---------
Så, vi är inte i ett globalt krig mot terrorismen?
Försök förklara det för alla familjer i hela världen som har förlorat nära och kära pga. terror bombare. Det finns inte ett land i västvärlden som inte har upplevt detta slumpmässiga och meningslösa dödande.

Att föra krig mot fiender är en livsfarlig sysselsättning men att låta bli att göra det är ännu farligare. Men att låtsas bekämpa fiender samtidigt som man låtsas att de inte existerar är nog det farligaste av allt.

Den värsta fienden för Obama verkar vara den del av det amerikanska folket som ifrågasätter eller protesterar mot hans sjukvårdsövertagande. Om man ser till meddelandet från White House, som jag skrev om tidigare, ska vi nu rapportera till regeringen om vi känner till människor som enl. Nancy Pelosi är "Omerikanska"

Om jag minns rätt, tillskansade sig de mest beryktade fascisterna i historien sin kontroll och makt genom att uppmana medborgarna att spionera på varandra och rapportera till myndigheterna. Kommunistiska Kina fortsätter fortfarande denna praxis i dag.

5 Kommentarer:

Knute sa...

The England team has been forced to withdraw from the World Badminton Championships in India because of "a specific terrorist threat".

The championships are being played in the Indian city of Hyderabad and will now continue without England.

The squad was pulled out of the tournament, which starts on Monday, following reports of a threat by the Muslim extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

http://www.bettingpro.com/category/Olympics/Terror-threat-causes-England-World-Badminton-Championships-withdrawal-200908090011/

http://blog.tv2.dk/literally/entry329942.html

Anonym sa...

Tips: Kulturtvätt eller bara vansinne?
http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article536570/Biblioteket-mal-ner-30-ton-bocker.html

Knute sa...

Tack för tipset! Kulturtvätt = hjärntvätt? Historielöshet bäddar för islamisering.
Tiden före islam är ovetandets tid. Mörkrets tid. Jahiliyya.

http://everykindapeople.blogspot.com/2007/02/vr-historia-brjade-med-mecka-och-medina.html

Knute sa...

We'll ease up on Muslim fanatics

LABOUR slammed the brakes on its war against violent extremism yesterday - amid fears it had upset Muslim voters.

Millions spent preventing Asian kids becoming terrorists will now be used to tackle right-wing racists in WHITE areas.

Community cohesion minister Shahid Malik admitted he was softening his stance because Muslims felt stigmatised.

But a former Labour aide called the move a "dangerous dilution" of the Government's counter-terrorism strategy

Tories branded it a shameless bid to win back Muslim voters who deserted Labour over Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than £45million a year has been spent on measures to prevent Al-Qaeda recruiting young Muslims in the UK.

It included action to break up Islamic ghettos and stop university hate preachers.

But Mr Malik, the first British-born Muslim MP, yesterday unveiled plans to broaden the scope of the campaign.

He announced: "We shall be putting a renewed focus on resisting right-wing racist extremism. We cannot dismiss or underestimate the threat."

Mr Malik told Sky News: "You speak to any Muslim (any muslim???? like this guy?? added by TheOpinionator)in this country and they are as opposed as you and I are to extremism and terrorism.

"The frustration is they are constantly linked with terrorism as a community as a whole."

His action contrasts with the tough stance of ex-minister Hazel Blears. She broke links with Muslim groups that failed to denounce extremists.

Her adviser Paul Richards said: "The good work by Hazel is being undone in the name of political correctness."

Former shadow home secretary David Davis said: "This has been watered down for purely political reasons. Labour has always seen Muslim voters as its own property.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2579296/Labour-says-they-will-ease-up-on-Muslim-fanatics.html

Knute sa...

Apropå den avvärjda terrorattacken i Australien:

"Jihadi ideology and strategies cannot be changed or affected by the wishful thinking of their victims. That is what Washington, London, and the rest of the partners in the so-called "overseas contingency operations” are learning day after day from Waziristan to North Carolina. Australia's new school of thinking on the confrontation, emulating U.S. and U.K. "new" doctrines, argues that by not pinpointing the ideology of the threat, it will just go away, or at least it would be sidelined.

Almost a month before the August arrests, Attorney General Robert McClelland launched "project lexicon," a study on the "language surrounding terrorism." As argued by British and American experts before, the Australian report found that "several of the words or phrases used to describe terrorism had the inadvertent effect of glorifying violent criminal behavior." It added that "rather than framing terrorism as a struggle by describing it as a "war" or "jihad", acts of terror should be described as serious criminal acts usually directed at innocent civilians."

Obviously, the Australian report, as with its Western cousins, fell into the trap of the jihadi war of ideas aiming at confusing and mitigating democracies by taking out their main weapon against the jihadists: to expose their ideology and rally the counter jihadist Muslims.

The evidence to such failure in identifying the threat came few weeks later as agencies were arresting people in their early 20s. As we saw in Georgia in the U.S., and in Birmingham in the U.K., a lexicon banning clear words only contributes to the defeat of democracies. For such wrong analysis is responsible for legitimizing jihadism in the eyes of indoctrinated youth. Naturally, if jihadism is not exposed, jihadi ideologues and cadrescan operate freely and in full legitimacy to further recruit.

Worse, by banning the use of extremely important terms, these medieval-like lexicons terminate the ability of analysts, let alone the public, to detect the "threat." The West in general, and Australia in particular, will unfortunately continue to experience the catastrophic effects of blurring their own vision, as most seasoned experts in jihadism believe the plots we have already uncovered are only the beginning.

Why did Australia’s government insist on inflicting its country to further risks of radicalization? Not only did it create a lexicon to confuse its law enforcement and public, but just one day before the arrests of the Salafi jihadists, the Australian Communications and Media Authority handed the jihadi Khomeinists a propaganda victory. Hezbollah TV, banned in the U.S. and in some European countries, was granted a license to broadcast. Al Manar, funded by the Iranian regime, promotes suicide bombings. Its capacity to produce jihadist minds is by far superior to the radical sheiks of Somalia and their fatwas.

The question is not why the jihadists are thrusting through the last safe Western society, but it is why Australia's policy makers are being duped by their experts.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2009/08/australia_down_under_jihad.php

http://jihadimalmo.blogspot.com/2009/08/varfor-hatar-de-oss.html

Skicka en kommentar

Vi uppskattar dina kommentarer men kan bara publicera dem om du skriver namn eller signatur! Det går annars inte att veta vilken Anonym man diskuterar med.