måndag, augusti 28, 2006

Terrorns infrastruktur: alfabet

Galna grejer händer med folk på flygplatser, baserat på deras utseende och rasistiska paranoia som medvetet spridits loss i de västerländska samhällena. En av de senaste händelserna var när ett plan på väg till Mumbai återvände till Amsterdam och 12 indiska män greps och förnedrades som ”terrormisstänka” för att de varit högljudda och skickat mobiltelefoner mellan varandra.

För någon vecka sedan greps en irakisk fredsaktivist för att han hade en tröja med arabisk och engelsk text! Ironiskt nog med budskapet ”vi kommer inte att vara tysta”. Säkerhetspersonalen på JFK-flygplatsen rapporteras ha tvingat mannen att byta tröja innan han fick gå på planet. ”Det är som att gå till banken med en skjorta som säger ’jag är en rånare’”, ska mannen ha blivit tillsagd.

Nyheten hittad via bloggen Se till vänster, där går en arab, som också visar tröjor gjorda som en reaktion – med den arabiska inskriptionen ”Jag är inte terrorist”.

17 kommentarer:

Anonym sa...

Fattar inte att nån före eller efter 9/11 kan vara så jävla dum att han/hon börjar vifta med mobiltelefoner medans planet lyfter. Och 12 på en gång!?!

Anonym sa...

ja för tydlighetens skull rättar jag till att det är 12 personer på en gång och inte en person som viftar med 12 mobiler fast det vore en prestation det med.

Anonym sa...

Och eftersom själva orsaken bakom alla hot mot USA/Israels överhöghet sägs vara Iran tar vi det en gång till.

Från Counterpunch:





Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth

By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa

In this frightening mess in the Middle East, let's get one thing straight. Iran is not threatening Israel with destruction. Iran's president has not threatened any action against Israel. Over and over, we hear that Iran is clearly "committed to annihilating Israel" because the "mad" or "reckless" or "hard-line" President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel But every supposed quote, every supposed instance of his doing so, is wrong.

The most infamous quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map", is the most glaringly wrong. In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word "map" or the term "wiped off". According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

What did he mean? In this speech to an annual anti-Zionist conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad was being prophetic, not threatening. He was citing Imam Khomeini, who said this line in the 1980s (a period when Israel was actually selling arms to Iran, so apparently it was not viewed as so ghastly then). Mr. Ahmadinejad had just reminded his audience that the Shah's regime, the Soviet Union, and Saddam Hussein had all seemed enormously powerful and immovable, yet the first two had vanished almost beyond recall and the third now languished in prison. So, too, the "occupying regime" in Jerusalem would someday be gone. His message was, in essence, "This too shall pass."

But what about his other "threats" against Israel? The blathersphere made great hay from his supposed comment later in the same speech, "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in [the] countenance of the Islamic world." "Stigma" was interpreted as "Israel" and "wave of assaults" was ominous. But what he actually said was, "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a wave of morality which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." "Wave of morality" is not "wave of assaults." The preceding sentence had made clear that the "stain of disgrace" was the Muslim world's failure to eliminate the "occupying regime".

For months, scholars like Cole and journalists like the London Guardian's Jonathan Steele have been pointing out these mistranslations while more and more appear: for example, Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments at the Organization of Islamic Countries meeting on August 3, 2006. Radio Free Europe reported that he said "that the 'main cure' for crisis in the Middle East is the elimination of Israel." "Elimination of Israel" implies physical destruction: bombs, strafing, terror, throwing Jews into the sea. Tony Blair denounced the translated statement as ""quite shocking". But Mr. Ahmadinejad never said this. According to al-Jazeera, what he actually said was "The real cure for the conflict is the elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be an immediate ceasefire first."

Nefarious agendas are evident in consistently translating "eliminating the occupation regime" as "destruction of Israel". "Regime" refers to governance, not populations or cities. "Zionist regime" is the government of Israel and its system of laws, which have annexed Palestinian land and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation. Many mainstream human rights activists believe that Israel's "regime" must indeed be transformed, although they disagree how. Some hope that Israel can be redeemed by a change of philosophy and government (regime) that would allow a two-state solution. Others believe that Jewish statehood itself is inherently unjust, as it embeds racist principles into state governance, and call for its transformation into a secular democracy (change of regime). None of these ideas about regime change signifies the expulsion of Jews into the sea or the ravaging of their towns and cities. All signify profound political change, necessary to creating a just peace.

Mr. Ahmadinejad made other statements at the Organization of Islamic Countries that clearly indicated his understanding that Israel must be treated within the framework of international law. For instance, he recognized the reality of present borders when he said that "any aggressor should go back to the Lebanese international border". He recognized the authority of Israel and the role of diplomacy in observing, "The circumstances should be prepared for the return of the refugees and displaced people, and prisoners should be exchanged." He also called for a boycott: "We also propose that the Islamic nations immediately cut all their overt and covert political and economic relations with the Zionist regime." A double bushel of major Jewish peace groups, US church groups, and hordes of human rights organizations have said the same things.

A final word is due about Mr. Ahmadinejad's "Holocaust denial". Holocaust denial is a very sensitive issue in the West, where it notoriously serves anti-Semitism. Elsewhere in the world, however, fogginess about the Holocaust traces more to a sheer lack of information. One might think there is plenty of information about the Holocaust worldwide, but this is a mistake. (Lest we be snooty, Americans show the same startling insularity from general knowledge when, for example, they live to late adulthood still not grasping that US forces killed at least two million Vietnamese and believing that anyone who says so is anti-American. Most French people have not yet accepted that their army slaughtered a million Arabs in Algeria.)

Skepticism about the Holocaust narrative has started to take hold in the Middle East not because people hate Jews but because that narrative is deployed to argue that Israel has a right to "defend itself" by attacking every country in its vicinity. Middle East publics are so used to western canards legitimizing colonial or imperial takeovers that some wonder if the six-million-dead argument is just another myth or exaggerated tale. It is dismal that Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to belong to this ill-educated sector, but he has never been known for his higher education.

Still, Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets." He actually said, "In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets." This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself - i.e., "myth" as "mystique", or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the "cult" or "ghost" of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad's main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.

Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.

The current fuss about Iran's nuclear enrichment program is playing out so identically to US canards about Iraq's WMD that we must wonder why it is not meeting only roaring international derision. With multiple agendas regarding Iran -- oil, US hegemony, Israel, neocon fantasies of a "new Middle East" -- the Bush administration has raised a great international scare about Iran's nuclear enrichment program. (See Ray Close, Why Bush Will Choose War Against Iran.) But, plowing through Iran's facilities and records, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have found no evidence of a weapons program. The US intelligence community hasn't found anything, either.

All experts concur that, even if Iran has such a program, it is five to ten years away from having the enriched uranium necessary for an actual weapon, so pre-emptive military action now is hardly necessary. Even the recent report by the Republican-dominated Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy, which pointed out that the US government lacks the intelligence on Iran's weapons program necessary to thwart it, effectively confirms that the supposed "intelligence" is patchy and inadequate.

The Bush administration's casual neglect of North Korea's nuclear program indicates that nuclear weapons are not, in fact, the issue here. The neocons are intent on changing the regime in Iran and so have deployed their propagandists to promote the "nuclear weapons" scare just they promoted the Iraqi WMD scare. Republican rhetoric and right-wing news commentators have fallen into line, obediently repeating baseless assertions that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program," is threatening the world and especially Israel with its "nuclear weapons program," and must not be allowed to complete its "nuclear weapons program." Those who nervously point out that hard evidence is actually lacking about any Iranian "nuclear weapons program" are derided as naïve and spineless patsies.

Worse, the Bush administration has brought this snow-job to the UN, wrangling the Security Council into passing a resolution (SC 1696) demanding that Iran cease nuclear enrichment by August 31 and warning of sanctions if it doesn't. Combined with its abysmal performance regarding Israel's assault on Lebanon, the Security Council has crumbled into humiliating obsequious incompetence on this one.

Like all phantasms, the nuclear-weapons charge is hard to defeat because it cannot be entirely disproved. Maybe some Iranian scientists, in some remote underground facility, are working on nuclear weapons technology. Maybe feelers to North Korea have explored the possibilities of getting extra components. Maybe an alien spaceship once crashed in the Nevada desert. Normally, just because something can't be disproved does not make it true. But in the neocon world, possibilities are realities, and a craven press is there to click its heels and trumpet the scaremongering headlines. It doesn't take much, through endless repetition of the term "possible nuclear weapons program," for the word "possible" to drop quietly away.

Evidence is, in any case, a mere detail to the Bush administration, for which the desire for nuclear weapons is sufficient cause for a pre-emptive attack. In US debates prior to invading Iraq, people sometimes insisted that any real evidence of WMD was sorely lacking. The White House would then insist that, because Saddam Hussein "wanted" such weapons, he was likely to have them sometime in the future. Hence thought crimes, even imaginary thought crimes, are now punishable by military invasion.

Will the US really attack Iran? US generals are rightly alarmed that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would unleash unprecedented attacks on US occupation forces in Iraq, as well as US bases in the Gulf. Iran could even block the Straits of Hormuz, which carries 40 percent of the world's oil. Spin-off terrorist militancy would skyrocket. The potential damage to international security and the world economy would be unfathomably dangerous. The Bush administration's necons seems capable of any insanity, so none of this may matter to them. But even the neocons must be taking pause since Israel failed to knock out Hizbullah using the same onslaught from the air planned for Iran.

But Israel can attack Iran, and this may be the plan. Teaming up, the two countries could compensate for each other's strategic limitations. The US has been contributing its superpower clout in the Security Council, setting the stage for sanctions, knowing Iran will not yield on its enrichment program. Having cultivated a (mistaken) international belief that Iran is threatening a direct attack on Israel, the Israeli government could then claim the right of self-defense in taking unilateral pre-emptive action to destroy the nuclear capacity of a state declared in breach of UN directives. Direct retaliation by Iran against Israel is impossible because Israel is a nuclear power (and Iran is not) and because the US security umbrella would protect Israel. Regional reaction against US targets might be curtailed by the (scant) confusion about indirect US complicity.

In that case, what we are seeing now is the US creating the international security context for Israel's unilateral strike and preparing to cover Israel's back in the aftermath.

Is this really the plan? Some evidence suggests that it is on the table. In recent years, Israel has purchased new "bunker-busting" missiles, a fleet of F-16 jets, and three latest-technology German Dolphin submarines (and ordered two more)- i.e., the appropriate weaponry for striking Iran's nuclear installations. In March 2005, the Times of London reported that Israel had constructed a mock-up of Iran's Natanz facility in the desert and was conducting practice bombing runs. In recent months, Israeli officials have openly stated that if the UN fails to take action, Israel will bomb Iran.

But Hizbullah, Iran's ally, still threatens Israel's flank. Hence attacking Hizbullah was more than a "demo" for attacking Iran, as Seymour Hersh reported; it was necessary to attacking Iran. Israel failed to crush Hizbullah, but the outcome may be better for Israel now that Security Council Resolution 1701 has made the entire international community responsible for disarming Hizbullah. If the US-sponsored 1701 effort succeeds, the attack on Iran is a go.

As Israel and the US try to make that deeply flawed plan work, we will doubtless continue to read in every forum that Iran's president - a hostile, irrational, Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" -- is demonstrably irrational enough to commit national suicide by launching a (nonexistent) nuclear weapon against Israel's mighty nuclear arsenal. The message is being hammered home: against this media-created myth, Israel must truly "defend itself."

Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock (University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She can be reached at tilley@hws.edu.

Anonym sa...

En annan galen grej var att två reportrar från Fox News tillfångatogs av palestinska frihetskämpar och under två veckor torterades, hotades och "förhördes". Till slut frigavs de dock, sedan de konverterat till islam.

Kanske vore något att blogga om.

Anonym sa...

tror de där fox-newskillarna kidnappade sig själva... bra nyhetsreportage att bli tillfångatagen av okända grupper och sedan blir frigiven för att man gör något som går emot Koranen (dvs konvertering under svärdet).

miika sa...

Plötsligt "dyker det upp" en ny grupp ingen har hört talas om med ett likartat namn till en redan existerande och gör "självmål" genom att skapa negativ publicitet mot den Palestinska kampen mot den sionistiska apartheidregimen.

Dessutom drar man in lite "intollerans" tvångskonvertering och "islamofascism"

Qui bono? Vem gynnas?....


Den fanatiska massmördarregimen i Tel Aviv tycks med andra ord vara fortsatt desperata efter sitt nederlag i Libanon och vänder sig mot ett säkrare kort där kontrollen är lika hård som riksbanken:

Världens största koncentrationsläger GAZA.

Förutom kanalen FOX själv fanatikerna i Tel Aviv hysteriska Israeliska publikationer och den rashatande folkmordsapologeten bland kommentarerna här, finns ingen som tror på annat än att denna extremt lägliga "kidnappning" utförts av samma fanatiska underrättelsetjänst som mördat Bernadottar politiker och excentriska libanesiska affärsmän i eget syfte...

Väntar med spänning på vilken ännu mer desperat åtgärd som följer efter detta ...

polhem sa...

Miika.

Du paminner lite om de forvirrade konpirations-galningarna som springer runt i skogarna i Alabama med automatvapen och tranar for en kommande invasion fran yttre rymden.

Micke den andre sa...

Väntar med spänning på vilken ännu mer desperat åtgärd som följer efter detta ...

----------------------------
Det har redan hänt.Nasrallah har sagt att dom kidnappningar som Hizbollah genomförde (dom som för enh del inte ens hänt) var ett misstag.

Antar att den globala sionistiska konspirationen har köpt honom.

miika sa...

Enligt FOX CNN NYT OCH JP som massmördarfanatikerna ovan tycks föredra så har Nasrallah sagt både det ena och det andra (se om Ahmadinejad ovan).Enligt den Libanesiska motståndsrörelsens egen kanal däremot framgår inget sådant.

Faktum är att tom. många Israeler själva föredragit den i sammanhanget mer sansade och trovärdiga Al-manar framför de Israeliska hysteriska krigstrumpeterna.


Man behöver inte befatta sig med "konspirationer" när verkligheten ser ut som den gör, eller var det kanske rymdvarelser som mördade Bernadotte? Som sänkte "Patria" fullastad med judiska arbetarimmigranter i Haifas hamn 1940?

Var det Marsianer som mördade Yassin?
Fantastiskt vilka "konspirationer!

Fick Libaneserna kanske hjälp från yttre rymden när de för andra gången lyckades slänga ut ockupationsregimen?

Komplotten tätnar...

Micke den andre sa...

Fick Libaneserna kanske hjälp från yttre rymden när de för andra gången lyckades slänga ut ockupationsregimen?
-----------------------

Vilken?

Den syriska eller den Israeliska ?

Anonym sa...

Det var tack vare den Syriska armens närvaro (på USAs begäran!) som ett relativt (med en fanatisk apartheidstat finns inget som heter permanent) fredstillstånd kunde hållas efter att Libaneserna slängde den sionistiska ockupationsarmen efter -82.

Sedan dess har den sionistiska ockupationsarmen slöat till sig med för dem själva säkra massakrer på Palestinier i indianreservat och koncentrationsläger och riktade mord för politiska mål, tills man mötte Hezbollah igen.

Det var liksom inte samma sak som att skjuta missiler in i tätbefolkade ghetton och öva prickskytte på Palestinska barn, det fick man snabbt erfara...

Why is it so hard for an Israeli to admit that an Arab combatant is just slightly better?
By Gilad Atzmon – Peace Palestine August 29, 2006

It is now clear that as much as the Israeli Army doesn’t know how to win a war, the Israeli people do not know how to lose one. Already at the late stages of the recent wave of hostility in Lebanon the Israelis were desperately searching for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone who would take personal responsibility for the humiliating Israeli collective defeat.

It didn’t take long before the Israelis turned en mass against Dan Halutz, their IDF Chief of Staff. They accused him of being an ‘arrogant pilot’, for being ‘detached from reality’ and for ‘not preparing the Army to win a war’. Dan Halutz, no doubt a qualified war criminal as well as an Israeli stock exchange inside trader, dismissed his critics. Yet, as one may expect, Halutz wouldn’t stand up and admit in public that the leader of a miniscule Arab paramilitary force, the legendary Hassan Nasrallah was just slightly better than himself in wining a battle and concluding a war. In fact, Nasrallah was just better than every Israeli general in using his force, in manoeuvring his fighting units, in strategic moves and tactical decisions. Halutz and his staff generals wouldn’t admit it because being Israeli soldiers, a product of Jewish nationalism and crude racism, they are all supremacist to the bone.

While in a meeting with reservist commanders last week Halutz learned about an IDF commander who refused to rescue combatants just because “they were not under his direct command”. He learned as well about another Israeli commander who managed to evade the battlefield in the midst of the fight. The commander was found hours later hiding inside a tank. Yes, the Israelis are far from being heroes, their paratroopers do not shoot from the hip as much as their tank commanders do not expose their upper body while the battle goes on. They all prefer to hide behind their glorious Merkava tank’s armour. However, they all fail to admit that the Hezbollah are just exactly the opposite. The Hezbollah warriors do shoot from the hip and they don’t have armoured vehicles to hide in. Yet, the Israelis would prefer blaming themselves rather than simply admitting that an Arab fighter happens to be just slightly better.

These days, an extensive Israeli reservist rebellion is emerging in Israel. The humiliated IDF fighters are somehow very unhappy. They felt unprepared for the war. Their weapons were faulty, so they say, they lacked the necessary gear, the ‘catering services’ failed to serve their food exactly when they expected it. If this isn’t enough, they insist as well that intelligence was misleading and orders where confusing. Like the archetypal Jewish mother, the newly born Hebraic Samson is a venerable effeminate character who would prefer to endorse the role of the victim. I believe that when the Israelis engage in self-criticism they tend to regard themselves as a collective of outspoken liberal beings. But in fact, they all lie to themselves. By putting themselves down they save themselves from confessing the clear fact that at least in this round the ‘Arabs’ were just far better.

The reservist rebels call for the immediate resignation of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz. Peretz so they say, is just a small ‘Union leader’, he lacks the capacity to command the army of a hostile state that insists upon putting world peace at a constant threat. They may be right. Peretz isn’t a natural talent. Indeed he was quick to join the never ending list of Israeli war criminals, he gave the Israeli Army the green light to bring ‘Lebanon to its knees’, to kill so many civilians, to destroy a country’s civil infrastructure. Yet Peretz was not a tactical or strategic visionary. He was good enough to spread death in the region but he himself didn’t understand what all this loss was there to serve. Unlike Peretz, who became a mass murderer just a few days into the war for absolutely no reason, Sheikh Nasrallah has managed to defeat Israel without bringing the state to its knees, without killing many civilians. Nasrallah won a war without being a mass murderer. And the question to be asked is whether the time is ripe for the Israelis to admit that a Lebanese Shiite leader is far more advanced both intellectually and morally than their own leaders. May I tell you, this is not going to happen. The Israelis are racist to the bone. Even now after being defeated by a bold patriotic group of warriors, they are still convinced that they are fighting a fanatical bunch of sub-humans.

And what about Olmert, the man who was voted to implement a sickening judeocentric unilateral peace agenda and managed to bring his country into a miserable war less than four months later? Would he admit in public or even to himself that it was Assad, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah who smashed the Israeli power of deterrence without causing any damage to the infrastructures? They did it without killing many civilians at all, just with light weaponry and conventional rockets, without American planes and Merkava tanks. They did it without hundreds of nuclear bombs. Will the Israelis admit that Assad, Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah are just slightly more clever than their own miserable leadership whom they ‘democratically elected’?

I say no, I say never! Israel is a racist national state. It is supremacist to the bone. The Israelis are not capable of regarding their neighbours as equal human beings. This is exactly why Israel has never been and never will be a partner for peace. In order to make peace you must first respect your foe.
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/

Micke den andre sa...

Alla Araber är legitima mål eftersom de är antisemiter.

moa sa...

"Alla Araber är legitima mål eftersom de är antisemiter."

Vilken logik!

Skulle 95% av "semiterna" vara anti sig själva då?

Micke den andra sa...

Alla Araber är legitima mål eftersom de är antisemiter.
.............................

Svara på frågan istället för att trolla med mitt nick och snacka skit.


Vilken ockupation?

Den syriska eler den israeliska?

Micke den andra sa...

Citat "Ibland är jag anonym ibland inte"


Det var tack vare den Syriska armens närvaro (på USAs begäran!) som ett relativt (med en fanatisk apartheidstat finns inget som heter permanent) fredstillstånd kunde hållas efter att Libaneserna slängde den sionistiska ockupationsarmen efter -82
----------------------
Vem hade väntat annat än att vissa ockupationer är bättre än andra....
Ha ha ha...

Anonym sa...

Idioter som provocerar sina medpassagerare när dom VET att alla är på tårna p.g.a alla j-a islamistdårar som inget hellre vill än att spränga sig själva i luften bör ju inte få resa alls. Det har aldrig varit tillåtet förut att insinuera att man tänker ställa till med något, så varför skulle det vara det nu? Jag rekommenderar Ali att inte börja gapa "Allah är stor" innan han skall flyga...

Anonym sa...

Jo, man måste ju skylla allt på Israel! Det är ju de som gör alla fel!
Det finns ingen organisation som är mot Israel och inte vill något hellre än att förstöra Israel.
Det var Israel som från första början började med att attackera sina grannländer för att de tyckte att "de inte har rätt att excistera"

Lika bra att ta upp allt mot Israel! Alla i Israel är rasister men ingen i Libanon (speciellt södra) eller något annat land hatar Israeler.

Kolla i Irak! Allt är USA:s fel! Det har aldrig funnits våld i Irak förr. Extremistiska islamister är snälla!