Völkische Organisationen aus Deutschland unterstützen sezessionistische Kräfte in den kurdischen Provinzen des Nordirak

Newsletter vom 23.09.2010 – Von Bagdad nach Erbil (II)

BERLIN/GÖTTINGEN/ERBIL (Eigener Bericht) – Völkische Organisationen
aus Deutschland unterstützen sezessionistische Kräfte in den
kurdischen Provinzen des Nordirak. Federführend ist die „Gesellschaft
für bedrohte Völker“ (GfbV), die bereits seit längerem den „Anschluss“
der ressourcenreichen Gebiete von Mossul und Kirkuk an die „Autonome
Region Kurdistan“ fordert. Schützenhilfe erhält die GfbV sowohl vom
Auswärtigen Amt als auch von der Partei Bündnis 90/Die Grünen;
letztere kann auf langjährige Beziehungen zu dem in
„Irakisch-Kurdistan“ herrschenden Barzani-Clan verweisen, der
zeitweise die Abspaltung des Gebietes vom Irak offen vorangetrieben
hat. Insbesondere im Hinblick auf die ölreiche Provinz Kirkuk verlangt
auch die FDP-nahe Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung eine „Machtteilung“
entlang ethnischer und religiöser Linien – unter dem Stichwort



Bill Clinton and the Ground Zero Mosque: A Perfect Fit by Srdja Trifkovic Chronicles Online, September 23rd, 2010

Bill Clinton and the Ground Zero Mosque: A Perfect Fit
by Srdja Trifkovic   Chronicles Online, September 23rd, 2010

Former President Bill Clinton declared his strong support for the Ground Zero
mosque in an interview broadcast on September 12. He also suggested a clever new
spin to the promoters of the project. Much or even most of the controversy, he
said, “could have been avoided, and perhaps still can be, if the people who want
to build the center were to simply say, We are dedicating this center to all the
Muslims who were killed on 9/11.” Dedicating the mosque to the Muslim victims,
he claims, would show that not all Muslims are terrorists: “We’ve all forgotten:
There were a lot of Muslims killed on 9/11.”
First a trivial point: according to the Islamic activist sources, which are
certain not to offer an underestimate, the number of Muslims killed on 9-11 in
all three locations was 31, or about one percent of the total. (That number
excludes the perpetrators themselves, but the same sources would claim that,
since they were terrorists, they were not true Muslims anyway. Such claims are
known as taqiyya.) Thirty one innocent lives is inherently “a lot,” but it is
significantly less than three percent, which Islamic activists routinely claim
is the share of their coreligionists in the overall population of the United
States. There are two possible explanations for the discrepancy: either the
activists exaggerate their numbers by some 300 percent, or two-thirds of the
potential Muslim victims of 9-11 had been warned of the pending attack and
wisely refrained from turning up for work. The gap is even more striking if we
consider that the Muslim population of the Tri-State Region is at least twice
the national average.
The substantive point concerns a key theological consideration regarding Muslim
victims of Jihadist attacks, which Bill Clinton decided to omit from his pitch.
He must have done so deliberately: it is inconceivable for a former
President—with all the resources of research and expert opinion at his
disposal—to make a high-profile pronouncement on the Muslim victims of a
Jihadist attack, and yet to be unaware that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, has
given an authoritative opinion on the matter. According to Muhammad, any Muslims
killed in the course of indiscriminate attacks on “infidel” settlements are to
be viewed strictly as collateral damage:
It is no objection to shooting arrows or other missiles against the infidels
that there may chance to be among them a Muslim … because the shooting of arrows
and so forth among the infidels remedies a general evil in the repulsion thereof
from the whole body of Muslims, whereas the slaying of a Muslim … is only a
particular evil, and to repel a general evil a particular evil must be adopted…
[I]t seldom happens that the strongholds of the infidels are destitute of
Muslims … and hence, if the use of missile weapons were prohibited on account of
these Muslims, war would be obstructed. If the infidels in time of battle should
make shields of Muslim children, or of Muslims, who are prisoners in their
hands, yet there is no need on that account to refrain from the use of missile
weapons, for the reason already mentioned … There is also neither fine nor
expiation upon the warriors on account of such of their arrows or other missiles
as happen to hit the children or the Muslims, because the war is in observance
of a divine ordinance, and atonement is not due for anything which may happen in
the fulfillment of a divine ordinance, for otherwise men would neglect the
fulfillment of the ordinance …
So why did Clinton decide not to mention Muhammad’s significant views on the
subject? The answer seems clear: it would have destroyed his claim that
dedicating the Ground Zero Mosque to the Muslim victims would “show that not all
Muslims are terrorists.” Muhammad’s opinion proves that such dedication would
show nothing of the kind: if those 31 victims of 9-11 were true Muslims, they
necessarily accepted the Traditions of the Prophet as inviolable and supremely
authoritative guidance in their personal lives. As any orthodox qadi may
confirm, they would have been obliged to accept willingly their own status as
collateral damage in the attacks of 9-11—just as they would have been obliged to
risk the lives of other Muslims in a Jihadist attack carried out by themselves.
Well, Bill Clinton may reply, such argument does not apply because 9-11 was not
an approved ghazwat. But WWMD (What Would Muhammad Do)? That is—we’d both agree,
I assume—the real question, for one-billion-plus Muslims to whom imitatio
Muhammadi is the supreme goal in life, and for the rest of us.
Al-Azhar University scholars—the most authoritative Sharia interpreters in the
world—have asserted that the United States is waging an offensive war against
Islam, and that terrorist operations are therefore divinely ordained defensive
measures to protect the Muslim community from outside aggression. In March 2003,
just days before the second Iraq war, they announced that “according to Islamic
law, if the enemy steps on Muslims’ land, Jihad becomes a duty on every male and
female Muslim.”
In the Quran and in Muhammad’s Traditions (Sunna, Ahadith), in Jihad there is no
prohibition against killing non-combatants, women and children. Quite the
contrary: since America has targeted Muslim civilians, either itself (Iraq,
Afghanistan) or by proxy (Israel), the same response is not only lawful but
divinely ordained: “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he
attacked you” (Quran 2:194). If the unbelievers target Muslim women, children
and elderly, it is obligatory for Muslims to respond in kind.
Muhammad specifically condoned killing civilians when they are mixed with
combatants. Asked about the infidel children and women who stayed behind with
the enemy fighters and were killed, he replied, “they are from among them.” They
ceased to be “inviolable.” Furthermore, non-combatants may be killed if they
have assisted in combat “in deed, word, opinion, or any other way.” This is
attested by Muhammad’s order to murder Duraid Ibn al-Simma, an old and infirm
poet who provided advice to his enemies. His sweeping concept of “combat
assistance” includes indirect support of which every gainfully employed American
is potentially guilty.
Furthermore, Muhammad condoned killing women and children when it is necessary
to sap the fighting potential of the infidel by destroying “the fortifications
or the fields of the enemy in order to weaken his strength, to breach the
ramparts, or to topple the country.” This is exactly what Muhammad did in his
attack on the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir in Medina.
Last, and for Bill Clinton by no means least, Muhammad condoned the use of the
weapons of mass destruction, specifically the catapult, during the siege of the
city of Ta’if. Civilians were killed and maimed by these machines that hurled
heavy rocks at the fortified city, just as hundreds of Serb civilians were
killed during Clinton’s air war against Serbia in 1999.
Both Bill Clinton and the followers of Muhammad subscribe to a moral philosophy
and a legal code that in principle allows terrorist acts, including mass murder
of innocent women and children. A good Muslim knows that a thing is right simply
because Allah says so, or because the prophet of Islam has thus said or done.
Bill Clinton knows a thing is right because it serves his ends, whatever they
may be. There is no “spirit of the law” in Clinton’s or Muhammad’s world, no
rationality behind it for human reason to discover. Neither of them needs any
other standard of good and evil, least of all a notion of “natural” justice such
as that assumed by the founding fathers of the United States.
It is right and proper for Bill Clinton to be a supporter of the Ground Zero

Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor
CHRONICLES: A Magazine of American Culture

Zum wiederholten Mal widmen sich deutsche Geographen sogenannten Raumplanungsproblemen

Newsletter vom 24.09.2010 – Kapitale Destabilisierung

BERLIN/BOLZANO/ROM (Eigener Bericht) – Zum wiederholten Mal widmen
sich deutsche Geographen sogenannten Raumplanungsproblemen in
Norditalien und erforschen die Sezessionskraft „ethno-linguistischer
Minderheiten“. Das Gebiet im Speckgürtel zwischen Mailand und der
Grenze zu Österreich gehört zu den traditionellen Einflusszonen
deutscher Großraumpolitik und war jahrzehntelang Ziel terroristischer
Aktivitäten. Forum der wissenschaftlich verbrämten Untersuchungen ist
eine Zeitschrift des „Leibniz-Instituts für Länderkunde“, die aus
Haushaltsmitteln des Berliner Verkehrsministeriums finanziert wird.
Das in Leipzig publizierte Blatt („Europa Regional“) ist wegen seiner
„Raum“-Forschungen berüchtigt. In der jüngsten Ausgabe begründen die
Autoren ihre Untersuchungen über Norditalien mit den „weltweit
zunehmenden ethnischen Konflikte(n), der Beeinflussung bilateraler
Beziehungen durch nationale Minderheiten sowie (…) die Auswirkung
von ungelösten Ethnizitätsfragen auf das politische und soziale
Klima“. Sogenannte Ethnizitätsfragen gehören zu den Spezialitäten der
oberitalienischen Lega Nord, deren offener Rassismus die Ethnopolitik
ihrer Vorwände entkleidet. Lega Nord und deutsche Ethnospezialisten
ergänzen sich, aber verfolgen unterschiedliche Territorialziele. Jetzt
dringt die Lega Nord in Reservate der italienischen Bankeneliten ein
und wird zu einer ernsthaften Bedrohung für den italienischen
Nationalstaat. Dies führt zu Umstrukturierungen bei der UniCredit, der
größten italienischen Privatbank mit Ablegern in Österreich,
Deutschland und Osteuropa.


Неко ће кад тад платити цену за ово ућуткивање народа и за рад иза леђа нас који смо део ове државе – pismo čitaoca GD

Неко ће кад тад платити цену за ово ућуткивање
народа и за рад иза леђа нас који смо део ове
државе. Није џабе речено да кад је мук у народу-
попуштај. А ови настављају са даљим играњем
бога за нас све.Сад имамо даље сиромашење народа
и мешање господе на власти у рад цркве и игрању
„светог духа“ око избора патријарха. На сахрани
предходног почившег патријарха,главни глумац је
наш председник,исто је и на спортским дешавањима-
опет је главни глумац-председник.На сваком је месту
и у све се меша.(као у реклами за маргарин).Обећао је
ућуткивање медија- и то је прво спровео преко неуставног закона којег је изгласало његових 126.Сад
нам на силу намећу геј параду,како би скренули пажњу
да ништа нису урадили за ове 3 године власти.Корупција
цвета као коров амброзија,и не уништава се јер је главно извориште сама извршна власт са калифом на