Fellestrekk mellom antisemitisme og islamofobi?

Jødene ble i flere tiår svartmalt i europeisk og amerikansk media. De ble fremstilt som rotter som hadde planer om å erobere verden. De ble ofte latterliggjort og majoritetssamfunnet satte stadig spørsmålstegn ved deres tro, levemåte og behandling av kvinner.
Minner det ikke deg om måten muslimer og islam blir fremstilt i dag?

Propaganda mot jødene 1850-1950 i Europa  - denne svartmaling av en religiøs gruppe førte til massemord av flere millioner uskldige jøder

Propaganda mot jødene 1850-1950 i Europa - denne svartmaling av en religiøs gruppe førte til massemord av flere millioner uskldige jøder

Antisemitisme like før andreverdenskrig. En effektiv måte å piske opp hat og støtte for å uttrydde europeiske jøder fra Europa

Antisemitisme like før andreverdenskrig. En effektiv måte å piske opp hat og støtte for å uttrydde europeiske jøder fra Europa

karikaturtegning som fremstiller islam til å være en voldelig religion

karikaturtegning som fremstiller islam til å være en voldelig religion

Nok en karikaturtegning som fremstiller muslimer som voldelig og aggressiv

Nok en karikaturtegning som fremstiller muslimer som blodtørstig og ønske om kontroll over vestlig demokrati og ytringsfrihet

Anti-jødisk propaganda i USA. Tegning fra slutten av 1800-tallet

Anti-jødisk propaganda i USA. Tegning fra slutten av 1800-tallet

36 svar

  1. Jo, så absolutt. Dog, den viktigste myten som fyrer oppunder islamofobien idag, er konspirasjonsteorien om at det skal ha stått muslimer bak angrepet på New York i 2001.

    Denne myten står imidlertid endelig nå for fall, i og med publiseringen av den vitenskapelige artikkelen som påviser funn av sprengstoff (termitt) i nanoskala (nanotermitt) i det støvet som la seg over hele Manhattan etter at tårnene (de to + WTC7) kollapset på mystisk vis 11. september.

    Nanotermitt lages av to statlige laboratorier i USA; Los Alamos og Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

    Mer om saken på islam.no.

    • Det her er faen meg det dummeste jeg har hørt. Såklart var det muslimer som sto bak 9 11 . Herregud hvordan er det mulig og kalle det en myte? de tok jo på seg skylden. Og og si at muslimer ikke er voldelige blir for meg også noe av det dummeste jeg har hørt. Om du er nordmann i Norge og prøver og gå på gata i Oslo, Hva skjer om du glimter borti en ny landsmann? du risikerer at han grisebanker deg og ikke nok med det, bare for og gni inn feigheten ringer han 10 andre som også står og grisebanker deg. Og dette gjelder utlendinger generelt også, De er feige voldelige og nøler ikke et sekund med og omtrent drepe deg for og morro skyld og for å få respekt, dere snylter på staten og kun går hjemme. Og denne er til dere utlendinger som reker gatelangs og kun gjør faenskap, jeg har ingen fordommer for andre folkeslag. Ikke noe i mot en snill gutt som oppfører seg og er høflig, men når dere får lov til og komme hit til landet, og ikke viser noe tegn til takknemlighet og bare gjør faenskap så kan dere pelle dere tilbake, men der nede dere kommer fra så blir dere nemlig steina om dere oppførerer dere noe i nærheten av hva dere gjør her. Og det er også grunnen til at dere gjør faenskap fordi her er vi altfor snille med dere, Mens hjemlandet deres ville dere blitt steina. konklusjon, dere er uetiske, kranglete, fulle av faenskap, rett og slett brutale og sist men ikke minst voldelige som dagen er lang.

  2. Jyalland Posten eller danske avisne for den saksskyld har ikke avdekket noe som helst. Nanotermitt ble nevnt i boka til Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmad (War on Truth) og senere av Ray Griffith – Debunking 911 Debunking allerede i 2004. Problemmet er at ingen hadde lyst til å diskutere dette.
    Terrorister med muslimsk bakgrunn med opphav fra Saudia Arabia sto bak angrepene, noe amerikanske myndighetene visste om flere mnd på forhånd.
    Noe som jeg misliker sterk er konspirasjon om at ingen jøder var i tvillingtårene den 11.sept. Det er ingen bevis på at det var tilfellet.
    Amerikanske myndighetene hadde en hånd i at Bygg Nr7 og tvilingtårene raste sammen og slik at mange fler ble drept enn de to-tre hundre som ble drept da flyene krasjet inn i bygningene.

  3. [...] terrorisme, World Trade Center, WTC, wtc7 Den kjente skribenten og rikssynseren Iffit Qureshi skriver ikveld på bloggen Hijab-Brigaden at avsløringene i danske aviser og dansk TV2 denne uken om [...]

  4. “Terrorister med muslimsk bakgrunn med opphav fra Saudia Arabia sto bak angrepene, noe amerikanske myndighetene visste om flere mnd på forhånd.”

    Har du noen beviser på at disse stod bak?

    “Noe som jeg misliker sterk er konspirasjon om at ingen jøder var i tvillingtårene den 11.sept. Det er ingen bevis på at det var tilfellet.”

    Riktig. Men det israelske dataselskapet Odigo, som hadde kontorer i WTC, ble advart:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744

  5. The anti-islamic propaganda in the Western world is correctly seen as a repeat of the virulent anti-semitic propaganda of earlier times. The methods are similar and the motives are similar: The ruling class attempts to stir up popular hate against a useful “enemy”. To stir the public in Western societies against Muslim nations helps in justifying wars for the control of oil resources and strategic positions in Central Asia. There is, however, a difference. Whereas the anti-semitic propaganda of earlier times was limited to one or a few countries, the current anti-islamic propaganda is promoted by Hollywood, by NATO, by the European Union and even by the United Nations Security Council. It is the official policy of the world’s rulers to incite the populations of the rich nations to distrust Muslims.

    The author above is, however, balking up the wrong tree when he writes that Muslims perpetrated the mass murder of 9/11. The author has no right to accuses innocents of mass murder. He has not and is unable to produce any evidence for this accusation because even the US government has been unable to do so until this very day. There is simply no evidence – none – that Muslims committed the crime. For details, see: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

    The author is also justified in rejecting the story of 4,000 Jews not coming to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, as a myth. However the author fails to take into account the report by the Israeli Foreign Ministry issued on September 12, 2001, and published in Jerusalem Post, that the Ministry had received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to be present at or near the World Trade Center, and expressed its worries about their fate. The questions remaining unanswered to this day, are (1) how did the Israeli Ministry knew that 4,000 Israelis were located in or around the WTC, and their names, and (b) how come only one Israeli citizen actually died at the World Trade Center, if 4,000 were supposed to be there on that day.

  6. Dear Elias, How nice to hear from you :) We met in Kristiansand together with David Ray Griffith about two years ago. Nice to see that you are following this discussion from the other side of the world, and I am honored to have such a respected scholar replying our threads :)

    I am not an authority on this issue. I am aware of the fact that many of the “terrorist” on the plane were later found to be alive and well. And that Muhammad Atta was a terrible pupil at flight school. I recently read a book (sorry can’t remember the name – but it was a CIA whistle blower) about the CIA becoming aware of plans to crash passenger flights into sky scrapers already in 1994, and they had even paid an informant to complete the task of blowing up a building in Al-Qaudas name, but the informant refused.

    Both you and Hijki are bringing to my attention information, which I was totally unaware of and i will read more about this.

    It is crucial that we the know about 911. As we all know it has caused mayhem across the planet and increased ethnic and religious divides, and increased extremism across the globe. There seems to be no turning point, and that we are likely to reach the pits of hell before the light clears and we can breath again.

    The Jewish link still seems far-fetched but I will look into it.

  7. Dear Iffit,

    I did not realize it was you the author of the article. Good to hear from you. I appreciate that you are not an “authority” on the question of 9/11. I have, on the other side, researched in great depth the events of 9/11 for the last 6 years. It is extremely disturbing that the main victims of anti-Islam propaganda, the Muslims in the West and in Muslim countries, have not been in the forefront in the struggle for the truth on 9/11. While many Muslims suspect that the US (with or without Israel) staged 9/11, there are very few Muslims who actually engaged in serious research to back up their feelings. It is mostly American scholars and scientists, flanked by a handful of Europeans, who have demonstrated that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government. Today, we are in fact past the period of research. It is now established beyond reasonable doubt that the US government masterminded 9/11, even if no judge would risk his/her life in actually demanding a real investigation. Only those who have not done their homework can still believe that Muslim terrorists committed this crime. And of course there are many whose livelihood depends on peddling the blood-libel against Muslims for 9/11. The same applies most probably to the so-called terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Casablance, Bali, Mumbai, Tunisia, etc., all of which must be presumed to have been orchestrated by the CIA or by allied intelligence services. Let us never forget that the very cohesion of the Western Alliance was in danger of dissolving after the dissolution of the Soviet threat. The Western Alliance and Western interests needed existentially the manufacturing of a new enemy. That enemy was designated the “global Islamic terrorist threat” and its construction began in the late 1980s by using unemployed Arab fighters from Afghanistan (who had nothing to do after the Soviet Union left Afghanistan) as the secret army of the CIA and the MI5 to maintain the fiction of Muslim terrorism. Some of these patsies were used to engineer the first “terrorist attack” on the World Trade Center in 1993. They were directed by the FBI. Others, such as Ali Mohamed the Egyptian, were tasked by the US with the preparation of the bombing attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (in which most victims were locals). The 19 alleged terrorists of 9/11 were hired to leave a trail of evidence in the US (learning to fly, leaving Qur’ans in bars and in cars, and making the impression of secretiveness on their neighbors) that would be used after 9/11 to “prove” that Muslims committed the crime. No one of these 19 people, however, boarded any of the 9/11 flights.

    Anyone who doubts my words and wants me to substantiate my allegations, is welcome to send me an email at:
    eliasdav (at) t-online.de

  8. Jyalland Posten eller danske avisne for den saksskyld har ikke avdekket noe som helst. Nanotermitt ble nevnt i boka til Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmad (War on Truth) og senere av Ray Griffith – Debunking 911 Debunking allerede i 2004. Problemmet er at ingen hadde lyst til å diskutere dette.

    Det er korrekt at offentligheten i fx Norge hadde svært liten lyst til å diskutere termitt/nanotermitt, noe vi jo i høy grad også ser nå i april 2009. Ikke én sak! Noe sted! Ikke ett norsk massemedium føler for å ta i denne saken med ildtang, selv om den har eksplodert denne uken i danske dagsaviser og TV-nyheter.

    Det som er nytt i april 2009 er at funn av nanotermitt i WTC-støvet for første gang er demonstrert i en vitenskapelig publisert artikkel etter årelangt arbeid og månedsvis med peer-reviews og refereeing. Rapporten holder altså høy vitenskapelig standard, noe som er årsaken til at den tross alt får seriøse oppslag i dansk og etterhvert andre lands mainstreampresse. Det blir noe helt annet enn en dårlig webside eller Powerpoint.

    «Debunking 911 Debunking» kom i 2007 og er skrevet av David Ray Griffin (navnet bør være korrekt stavet for å lette googling for dine lesere).

    «The War on Truth» av Nafeez Ahmed kom i 2005, og hadde neppe med noe om nanotermitt, da dette ble funnet i støvprøver langt senere.

    De danske avisene og TV2 har uansett avdekket denne muligheten – for sprengning – for danske lesere og seere som tidligere må ha trodd at det ikke var noen substans i dette – eller som aldri hadde hørt om det overhode.

    Vi må ikke glemme at massemedier – hvis de hadde gjort jobben sin – ville ha avslørt dette for lenge siden, og slik sett hindret både Afghanistan-invasjonen og Irak-krigen. Dette er deres – journalistenes – holocaust.

  9. Nå vil ikke jeg fyre opp under hverken anti-semittisme eller anti-islamisme. Jeg har absolutt ingenting imot den jevne jøde, da de antakeligvis er akkurat som den jevne muslim eller nordmann: de vil ha fred og ro, mat i magen og tak over hodet. Den israelske regjering og deres metoder derimot, gir meg en dårlig smak i munnen. Og en skal ikke glemme at deres instrument (eller er det den egentlige ‘hjernen’?) mossad har som motto ‘By way of deception, thou shalt do war’.

    Når temaet 9-11 og Israel likevel er nevnt, så kan du jo liksågodt lese om de 5 israelerne som ble observert jublende på taket av en van mens de observerte det 2. flyet treffe bygningene:

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

  10. Thank you for correcting me Vidd (skriver på engelsk pga Elias som er ekspert på dette). I will have to find the book I read which mentioned the termitt you mentioned.
    The books I mentioned above are must reads for everyone interested in the 911 attacks and Nafeez’s book is extremely interesting when wanting to understand how the US gave birth to extremist groups with Islam as their ideological base in Afghanistan and later promoted similar groups in the Middle East.
    Even the London bombings from 2005 are considered to be an inside job. I have examined some of the pictures from the surveliance cameras and there are many serious issues which many do not dare to question for fear of being ostracised.

  11. Riktig, også London-bombene er en riktig luguber affære. En ire sitter nå i fengsel for å sendt sin egen, selvproduserte DVD om London-bombene i et brev til en adresse i England. Irsk rett har ilagt ham forbud mot å prate med mennesker fra England eller Wales om 7/7.

    Det er ikke akkurat noe vakkert samfunn som vokser frem i vårt naboland i vest.

  12. Iffit, jeg kjenner også godt til Elias Davidsson fra før, etter å ha researchet 9/11 siden september 2001… Her er intervjuet mitt med Elias fra april 2007.

    Som han sier selv, og som du ser av intervjuet, kan han godt lese norsk, mens han selv foretrekker å svare på engelsk.

  13. Ahh det viste jeg ikke om Elias :)

  14. Elias Davidsson writes:

    > Today, we are in fact past the period of research. It is now established beyond reasonable
    > doubt that the US government masterminded 9/11, even if no judge would risk his/her life
    > in actually demanding a real investigation. Only those who have not done their homework
    > can still believe that Muslim terrorists committed this crime. And of course there are many > whose livelihood depends on peddling the blood-libel against Muslims for 9/11. The same
    > applies most probably to the so-called terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, Casablance,
    > Bali, Mumbai, Tunisia, etc., all of which must be presumed to have been orchestrated by
    > the CIA or by allied intelligence services.

    Well, thanks Elias for these strongly disturbing pieces of well proven and undeniably true facts. How amazing. How could we be so blind? And now we can see due to your splendid and intelligent work. We are eagerly awaiting your next scoop. Keep up the good work! :-)

    • Are you trying to be ironic? I guess so based on your PS note Månedotten.
      Isn’t ignorance bliss. Let us pretend that the world is sliced up into neat little piles of black and white, good vs evil, east vs west, freedom vs tyranny. Oh lets see we have the War on Terror to cover all of those.
      The War on Terror had several purposes. Among them:
      1) Instability in the Middle East
      2) Keep factions/countries at war to boost the sales of Western and Israeli weapon industry.
      3) Natural resources (oil/gas) – and goddam it let them blow up the boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a few attacks to shatter talks between India and Pakistan to have a pipeline deal with Iran! Of course US couldn’t allow such a coalition. They want everyone waging wars against each other so they can play people into their hands like putty.

      • Iffit sa:

        “Isn’t ignorance bliss. Let us pretend that the world is sliced up into neat little piles of black and white, good vs evil, east vs west, freedom vs tyranny. Oh lets see we have the War on Terror to cover all of those.
        The War on Terror had several purposes. Among them:
        1) Instability in the Middle East
        2) Keep factions/countries at war to boost the sales of Western and Israeli weapon industry.
        3) Natural resources (oil/gas) – and goddam it let them blow up the boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a few attacks to shatter talks between India and Pakistan to have a pipeline deal with Iran! Of course US couldn’t allow such a coalition. They want everyone waging wars against each other so they can play people into their hands like putty.”

        Du glemte den viktigste: Kontroll vha frykt. De overvåkingstilstander og brudd på privatlivets fred som vi har fått de siste årene hadde aldri vært mulig uten 9-11.

  15. PS: Im assuming that the Financial Crisis and Global Warming as well is due to the CIA/FBI conspiracy. What a world we are living in…

  16. Iffit, jeg håper du kommer på Litteraturhuset 14. mai.

  17. Det er alltid godt å kunne legge skyld over på andre slik at man ikke behøver å ta tak i problemene selv. Er det noe hold i teoriene om at amerikanerne selv skulle stå bak hendelsene niende september i 2001 tror jeg det er nok mennesker som er klare til å hoppe på historien. Den nå avgåtte administrasjonen i USA står vel neppe så høyt i kurs at det er mange som ønsker å beskytte dem fra det man kan kaste etter dem.

    Det er forsåvidt sant at det benyttes uhorvelig mye penger på våpen i ulike konflikter men man bør kan hende se litt på kostnadene ut over våpenkjøp/bruk når man setter opp et regnestykke på hva en krig koster. Det er neppe lønnsomt for et land som USA eller Israel å gå til krig for å tjene penger på sitt eget våpensalg til seg selv. Andre lands kjøp blir vel heller ikke trigget av at disse landene kriger, de kjøper fordi de trenger våpnene til egne kriger eller til fornying av våpen i eget forsvar.

    Men våpen fra Israel og Usa er ikke av de rimeligste, så fattigfolk vil nok heller handle med for eksempel Russland hvor de får mer igjen for pengene.

    Jeg tro at man heller bør se på vestens rolle i det å “skulle” redde verden fra seg selv. Man har jo postet et innlegg om Swat dalen i Pakistan her på disse sidene om man kan vel ikke påstå at denne konflikten er forårsaket av vestlige land. Litt kynisk kan man kanskje begynne å tenke på at vestlige land bør holde seg unna konflikter utenfor eget område. Afganerne får rydde opp selv i sine problemer. Pakistan tilsvarende, enten det er interne konflikter eller konflikter med naboland som for eksempel India eller Afghanistan.

    Dog bør vesten beskytte seg mot å få importert problemene til eget teritorie. Det kan gjøres ved å nekte å ta imot mennesker fra land som ikke gidder å rydde opp i eget hjem selv. Dette vil være ganske grusomt for de som trenger hjelp og beskyttelse men det må kan hende til for å slipp anklager om at man hele tiden er skyld i mer eller mindre alle konflikter som finnes i verden.

    Heldigvis ser vi en utvikling i blant annet USA hvor man nå ser på hvordan man på sikt kan gjøre seg langt mindre avhengig av oljeimport enn det man er i dag. Synd for de som selger olje men det får bli deres problem. At dyrking av blant annet mais og rasp til biodrivstoff gjør det litt trøblete for en del land som ikke klarer å produsere maten sin selv eller ikke har råd til å kjøpe den får så være. Verden er jo urettferdig nok som det er om man skal begynne å ta slike smålige hensyn.

    Så spørsmålet er om vi skal fortsette den litt enkle versjonen av offer overgriper eller om vi skal forsøke å jobbe sammen for å skape en bedre verden for alle. Jeg tror faktisk at det er mulig men det krever at menneskene som bor på denne kloden vi lever på er villige til å jobbe sammen både innad i eget land og landene i mellom. Så langt ser det ikke ut som om vi som mennesker ønsker dette i det minste ikke mange nok til at vi klarer å snu utviklingen fra konflikt til fred.

    Se til Irak, jo da det skytes på de amerikanske og alierte styrkene der nede, men det ser jo ut som om man bomber og skyter like mye seg i mellom. Slikt sett var den kan hende bedre at Saddam Hussein var blitt sittende selv om han gasset ihjel en del kurdere og likviderte de som ikke var enige med ham. Men dette skyldes nok sikkert amerikanerne dette også, for det ville jo vært helt utenkelig at man først forente seg i kamp mot de man så som invasjonsstyrker for så å skyte på hverandre når man felles hadde fått kastet ut fienden.

    Afghanerne har for så vidt den samme muligheten som irakerne eller de kan gå tilbake til taliban slik man har valgt i Swat dalen. Vestlige styrker har slikt sett lite å vinne på å bruke penger og risikere egne borgeres liv i en kamp som på mange måter er bortkastet, i det minste om man er villige til å stenge egne grenser.

    Valget er ens eget, man kan som sagt legge seg ned å se på seg selv som et stakkars offer eller man kan stå opp og si la oss bygge en fredelig fremtid sammen.

    Nå erter jeg vel på meg en del folk her inne men det får så være, dere får heller dunke meg ettertrykkelig i hodet om dere føler for det.

  18. Om thermite som “bevis” for at World Trade Center ble ødelagt med sprengstoff – se på denne hva et halvt tonn greier:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ

    I tillegg – tidsskriftet “bevisene” er skrevet i er _ikke_ et skikkelig vitenskapelig tidsskrift, men ei blekke der folk betaler for å få sine mer eller mindre sprø ideer på trykk i noe som _ligner på_ et vitenskapelig tidsskrift.

    Det er på ingen måte bevist at thermite finnes i støvet.

    Og det gjenstår å se hvordan noen skulle transportere inn, plassere, tenne den mengden med thermite som eventuelt skulle til.

    Derimot er det gode, vitenskapelig dokumenterte, forklaringer på hvorfor et fly med enorme mengder flybensin vil føre til at stålkonstruksjonen falt sammen.

    Eventuelt kan man spørre en smed, hvis vitenskapsmenn ikke er til å stole på.

  19. There are many more elements than the presence or absence of thermite which strongly indicate controlled demolition. Anyone who believes the official conspiracy theory (according to which the World Trade towers fell because of the fire and the impact of the plane), must provide a plausible explanation for the following facts:
    1. The WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed.
    2. The WTC towers fell symmetrically, contrary to the assymetric damage by the aircraft
    3. Most of the building materials were transformed instantaneously into extremely fine dust (before hitting the ground). Where did the energy come from?
    4. A 240-tonne steel beam was ejected horizontally and was thrust into a building 100 meters from the WTC. What energy caused such a result?
    5. Over 100 firefighters, rescue workers and journalists described multiple explosions that they experienced, heard or saw just before the “collapse”, including explosions at the basement of the WTC.
    6. Molten metal was found at Ground Zero weeks after 9/11.

    Anyone who believes the official conspiracy theory must also explain why the official investigation of the collapse (by NIST) did not include an investigation of the actual collapse, only the pre-collapse phase.

    • I think there is a fundamental question many are asking. Why would a government kill it’s own people? Despite the serious cock-ups in the 911 Commissions final report and also the free fall of all three buildings – I still cannot understand why they would kill their own people. Did the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq really require an attack of this magnitude to round up support for the invasions???

  20. US leaders themselves have provided the answer to the question “why they would kill their own people”. Zbignew Brzezinski hinted in his book “The Grand Chessboard” (1998): “Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.” (p.35) “Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)

    Later, one year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century, whose members include(d) Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and other individuals who became high officials of the George W. Bush administration, issued a report named Rebuilding America’s Defenses, where it was made clear that for America to dominate much of humanity and the world’s resources, “some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” was needed so the American people would accept to finance vast military appropriations and endorse foreign military interventions. The reference to Pearl Harbor was based on the fact that only the Pearl Harbor convinced the American public to support the entry of the United States into World War II.

    The Pearl Harbor of the 21th Century was manufactured so that the American people accept to increase substantially military expenses, support wars of aggression and submit to a semi-fascist rule.

    Finally, it must be remembered that political leaders, whether in the United States or elsewhere, seldom view ordinary citizens as their compatriots. Political leaders never hesitated in sending ordinary people to remote countries to kill and die for corporate economic interests. They view ordinary people as expendable when necessary.

  21. Sorry to interrupt your ramblings, but in a related news story its also verified that Elvis is alive and well. Aging, for sure, but still The King.

    If you should call the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan “invasions” (as Iffit calls them) is of course questionable, but we do agree on one thing: They were grave mistakes and serve no further useful purpose whatever their initial intentions where. Get out. Now. The sooner the better. I can see no hope for a military success. In a tribal society unfortunately doomed to live in the islamic middle ages (and where the fact that Afghanistan have the stomach to be THE numero uno heroin supplier to europe while beeing morally upset by the look of a womans leg – not to mention a face, God forbid) I see NO hope. The social and economic issues can not be easily fixed in a ’society’ where given half a chance they kill the teachers as soon as they can find them, flog innocent young girls for public ammusements and where the puppy regime is so insanely corrupt that you can be pretty sure that however much money you throw on education and the feeble attempts to build a half-decent working society (eg: non-sharia, democratic, with religious freedom, freedom of speech and meaningful sivil rights) most of the money is going to get in the very wrong hands. Thats what corruption is all about, and in the end, trust me, people will take free money if they can, in that department religion doesn’t count.

    Its a tragedy, I know, but I’m very very close to not caring any more. There are more than enough of worthy and needing issues and people around the world where people do NEED and CARE.

    According to Iffit the reasons for the 9/11 (and add various other bombings where REAL PEOPLE GOT KILLED, TO BE DEAD IS A REAL BUMMER FOR THOSE CONSERNED NO MATTER WHAT NATIONALITY OR RELIGION YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE) was a grand plan from Uncle Sam to, and I quote:

    “The War on Terror had several purposes. Among them:
    1) Instability in the Middle East
    2) Keep factions/countries at war to boost the sales of Western and Israeli weapon industry.
    3) Natural resources (oil/gas) – and goddam it let them blow up the boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a few attacks to shatter talks between India and Pakistan to have a pipeline deal with Iran! Of course US couldn’t allow such a coalition. They want everyone waging wars against each other so they can play people into their hands like putty.”

    1) Stop smoking whatever you are smoking Iffit, you have a bad conspiracytrip.,
    2) And if you are right, God forbid, I would still maintain: Get Out Of There. Its to late.

  22. Månebedotten you apologise for “interrupting” our “ramblings”. Well mon ami if you look at the article below and the links (including the videos) it will become apparent to you that there is a massive truth movement right across the USA, all of them “rambling” on about the exact same thing. Over tens of millions of Americans believe that their government was involved in the attacks either directly or indirectly. Millions of others have claimed that their government orchestrated the attacks. So yes we must all be smoking the same stuff Månebedotten. I guess your motto is “ignorance is bliss”. I suggest you wake up and smell the coffee.

    http://hijab-brigaden.net/2009/04/14/84-av-usa-stoler-ikke-pa-myndighetens-911-versjon/

  23. While I agree with the previous writer that “we” should get out of Afghanistan, if I dare use the first person plural, it must be emphasized that the use of force against Afghanistan and Iraq by the US and its allies was and is both illegal and criminal under international law. The legal term for these acts is “aggression” (the modern term) or “crime against the peace” (the term used at the Nurnberg trials). Several Nazi defendants were sentenced to death for planning and pursuing a war in violation of international law. And although I am opposed to the death sentence, it is both morally and legally sound to criminalize wars of aggression.

    The UN General Assembly has, by its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, defined the term “aggression”. It can be read both on the website of the United Nations and at various other places, such as here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html.

    Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked the United States or the U.K. The use of force against these countries was premeditated and the invocation by the US and the UK of the “right to self-defence” was a fraud. Neither State could produce any evidence that Afghanistan or Iraq had attacked or was on the verge of attacking them. The U.S. also failed to produce evidence that 9/11 had any connection to Afghanistan. But even if it had succeeded to prove that Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan was connected to 9/11 (which it did not), the use of force against Afghanistan could not be legally justified under existing international law. The occupation of a country illegally invaded falls equally under the illegality of aggression. Occupation of an illegally aggressed state remains tainted by the illegality of the aggression.

    Such acts give rise to two sets of legal obligations by the aggressors:
    (a) The responsibility of the aggressing states towards the aggressed states in terms of various forms of reparation (financial, political, etc)
    (b) The criminal liability of the individuals who planned, organized and directed the use of force against the aggressed state. For the time being, the community of states has failed to provide a judicial forum that could try such individuals. The Statute of the International Criminal Court envisages, however, that in the future the crime of aggression will be prosecutable.

    What does all of this has to do with Norway and other countries who have people on the ground in Afghanistan within the framework of NATO?
    (1) All occupying forces are essentially legitimate targets of Afghan resistance, regardless whether they engage in combat or not. German civilian authorities in occupied Norway were not protected under international humanitarian law. Killing such authorities was indeed a right of Norwegian resistance. The same applies to Afghan resistance attacking occupying forces. It does not matter whether these resistance forces believe in one form or other of Islam or are secular. It does not matter whether they beat their wives or love their cats.
    (2) The states which participate in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan bake themselves international liabilities towards the people of Afghanistan and will one day have to face the obligation of reparation.

    In terms of domestic politics, I would recommend that some decent member of the Norwegian parliament requests the release of the documents which permitted Norway to agree to the US claim made at the meeting of the NATO Council of October 2, 2001, that Afghanistan had something to do with 9/11. Such documents have never been produced in any NATO State. The reasons for the war on Afghanistan have remained a secret. The secret is, however, is that the box containing these reasons is empty. There are no reasons. It is all one big fraud. And if you can convince some MP to do so, he will reveal that the “king is naked” and that the entire Norwegian population has been lied to by the government and by the media. This, by itself, would be helpful for democracy.

  24. In the comment above Elias Davidsson (and Iffit agrees, I assume, as she she doesn’t utter a letter, word og sentence against) writes:


    What does all of this has to do with Norway and other countries who have people on the ground in Afghanistan within the framework of NATO?
    (1) All occupying forces are essentially legitimate targets of Afghan resistance, regardless whether they engage in combat or not. German civilian authorities in occupied Norway were not protected under international humanitarian law. Killing such authorities was indeed a right of Norwegian resistance. The same applies to Afghan resistance attacking occupying forces. It does not matter whether these resistance forces believe in one form or other of Islam or are secular. It does not matter whether they beat their wives or love their cats.
    (2) The states which participate in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan bake themselves international liabilities towards the people of Afghanistan and will one day have to face the obligation of reparation.

    Questions:

    1) Define the term “legitimate targets” as used by you above. Are we talking only military forces or do you by proxy include others? Doctors? Nurses? Others you care to mention? The population of Norway as such?

    2) Does location play any part, eg. do you see Norwegians as such and/or the Norwegian military forces as legitime targets no mather where they migth be located? In Norway as well?

    You say:


    The states which participate in the illegal occupation of Afghanistan bake themselves international liabilities towards the people of Afghanistan and will one day have to face the obligation of reparation.

    3) What do you see as ample compensation and how should it be done?

    • Månebedotten please do not persume you know what I am thinking or what I believe. There can be various reasons to why I did not challenge Elias – the one you mentioned is not one of them. Some of us have work, family and a social life and do not have the time to analyse every comment!

      Saying that I am glad that you have taken up this issue and asked Elias about this issue.

  25. Let’s now briefly examine the key militant groups based in Pakistan and their hidden and known links with al-Qaeda, Taliban and the ISI.

    Jamiatul Ansar (JUA) led by Maulana Fazalur Rehman Khalil Known as the only jehadi organisation from Pakistan with a record of closeness to Osama bin Laden, Jamiatul Ansar (JUA) is led by Maulana Fazlur Rahman Khalil who has enjoyed a long career in the ISI-sponsored Afghan and Kashmir jehads. Originally launched as the Harkatul Ansar, the group was renamed as the Harkatul Mujahideen (HUM or the Movement of the Holy Warriors) after the US designated it a Foreign Terrorist Organization in October 1997 and then re-named as the Jamiatul Ansar after the Musharraf regime banned the HUM in January 2002, under American pressure. Believed to be a Wahabi member of Laden’s International Islamic Front (IIF) for “Jehad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People” and a co-signatory of bin Laden’s first fatwa issued in 1998 calling for attacks against the US, Maulana Khalil was in the al-Qaeda training camps struck by the US cruise missiles in Khost and Jalalabad in August 1998.

    amir.mir1969@gmail.com

  26. I wish to apologize for my above inaccuracy with the regard to the “legitimate targets”. Civilians who belong to the occupying state and find themselves in an occupied territory, are not legitimate targets of attack. Obviously, Norwegians located outside Afghanistan, such as in Norway, are not legitimate targets by Afghan resistance, even if they vote for a government which participates in foreign occupation. However, Norwegians who willingly go to Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO cannot escape the risk of being conflated with the occupying forces, particularly if they enter the occupied areas under the protection of the occupying military forces. A Norwegian who is working in Afghanistan, even as a physician, relying on the protection of occupation forces, is not there by right but by might. Afghanistan is not ruled by a democratically elected government. The Afghan government is a puppet government protected by foreign guns. President Karzai cannot even trust Afghans to defend him. His bodyguards are foreign nationals.

    While the field of international compensation for the consequences of aggression is very complicated, precedents have been set by the UN-established Compensation Commission tasked with estimating compensation to victims of Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. The Commission’s website is: http://www.uncc.ch/introduc.htm

  27. Some further light on a global fraud: This is how governments are lying to us

    “By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell – and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” – Adolph Hitler

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels

    Here is how the Nazi concept of lying is practiced by the United Nations and the European Union

    First Part: Lies

    1. Security Council resolution 1456 (2003):

    “Terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to peace and security.”

    2. Security Council resolution 1566 (2004):

    “terrorist acts [are] one of the most serious threats to peace and security.”

    3. Security Council resolution 1611 (2005):

    “regards any act of terrorism as a threat to peace and security.”

    4. Statement by the President of the Security Council, 20 December 2006:

    “The Security Council reaffirms that terrorism constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.”

    5. UN General-Secretary Kofi Annan, 12 September 2001:

    “A terrorist attack on one country was an attack on all humanity.”

    6. European Council decision 2002/0196

    “Terrorism is one of the most serious threats to the life and safety of citizens, to democracy, to the free exercise of human rights and to economic and social development.”

    7. Council of the European Union Declaration of 24 November 2005:

    “Terrorism is a threat to all States and to all peoples. It poses a serious threat to the security of the European Union and the lives of its citizens.”

    8. EU Council Secretariat, Factsheet The EU and the Fight Against Terrorism , 9 March 2007:

    “Terrorism poses a significant threat to the security of Europe, to the values of our democratic socieities and to the rights and freedoms of European citizens.”

    Second Part: Facts

    1. At no time has terrorism proven a threat to”democracy, to the free exercise of human rights and to economic and social development.”
    2. At no time has terrorism proven a “threat to [international] peace and security.”
    3. At no time has terrorism proven a threat to “the security of the European Union.”
    4. At no time has terrorism proven a threat to the “values” of democratic societies or to the “rights and freedoms of European citizens”.
    5. The total YEARLY number of individuals killed by terrorists worldwide is substantially less than the number of children below the age of five who die EVERY DAY from preventable causes.
    6. In most countries of the world, no one has ever been killed by terrorists. This applies particularly to European countries.
    7. A person is more likely to be murdered by his/her partner/husband/wife than by terrorists. Family life has never been regarded as a threat to international peace and security, or a threat to democracy in spite of the fact that sometimes people kill their mates.
    8. No report issued by the United Nations, NATO and the European Union dares to publicize statistics of terrorist victims because such figures would expose the lie.
    9. Less than 0,2 percent of all persons murdered in Western countries, are killed by terrorists.
    10. No Muslim has been yet convicted in a European court for actually causing death by terrorism.

    Third Part: The reason for the lies

    After the demise of the Socialist bloc, the Western alliance (NATO) needed desperately a new “enemy” in order to maintain the unity and cohesion of the Alliance. The military-industrial complex equally needed the existence of an “enemy” to keep the money and profits flowing. This enemy was manufactured in the garb of an “Islamic global terrorist conspiracy” given the trade mark Al Qaeda. It has well served the interests of NATO, the military-industrial complex and imperial strategy.

  28. Eg håpar verkeleg at me kan skremma den vettlevoksne terrorist-budbringaren vekk frå dette nettstaden med å prate um han slik. Øgane mine svir av å lese så mykkje tullprat. Um han og kan lesa og prate slik vert eg skikkelig redd! No må eg gå og lauga meg før eg tek en god natts søvn. Trur nok eg uansett aldri nokon gang vil verdige han med eit svar. Farsken ljuse av spjotet: han var jo ein liten millimeter frå å erklære krig mot oss, trur eg. Eg skjalv!

  29. Tja, det blir neppe krig mellom Norig og Island, i alle fall ikke med det første. Norig patruljerer islandsk luftrom, og Island har norsk sentralbanksjef.

    Elias Davidsson er som kjent bosatt på Island, i Reykjavik.

Skriv et svar