Minister Asscher's Antisemitisme 5

MInister Asscher, gisteren werd bekend dat, in de terminologie van de NRC:

Netanyahu biedt Turkije excuses aan voor bestorming schip bij Gaza

Aankomst van de Mavi Marmara in Istanbul in december 2010. Op de zijkant van het schip beeltenissen van de negen activisten die op 31 mei omkwamen toen Israëlische commando's het schip overvielen. Foto AP / Burhan Ozbilici

door Anouk Eigenraam

BUITENLAND 

De Israëlische premier Netanyahu biedt Turkije excuses aan voor de doden die gevallen zijn bij de bestorming van het Turkse schip de Mavi Marmara in 2010. Dat meldt Reuters. De Turkse premier Erdogan zou de excuses van Israël ook geaccepteerd hebben.

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/03/22/netanyahu-biedt-turkije-excuses-aan-voor-bestorming-schip-bij-gaza/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=nieuwsbrief-20130322&utm_content=Buitenland&utm_term=hoofdartikel

Laten we deze eufemistische propagandataal even terzijde schuiven en de zaak in gewone woorden herformuleren: 

de 'Joodse staat' geeft toe dat negen Turkse burgers ten onrechte van nabij door hun hoofd zijn geschoten door Israelische commando's die in internationale wateren als een doodseskader hebben geopereerd. Een moordpartij die in Turkije en onder 'Turkse jongeren' in Europa afschuw heeft veroorzaakt tegen een natie die ongestraft het internationaal recht mag schenden van het Westen, en tegen joden in andere landen die de terreur van Israel steunen. Op die manier werd het 'antisemitisme' gecreëerd dat door u als vice-premier terecht met klem werd afgewezen. Afgezien van het feit dat het criminaliseren van een bepaalde minderheid  inderdaad stupide en ronduit verwerpelijk is,  

 steunt bovendien niet elke joodse Nederlander het extremisme van Israel, zoals het bestaan van Een Ander Joods Geluid duidelijk maakt. Het CIDI is geen spreekbuis van alle joodse Nederlanders, maar 'een pro-zionistische lobbygroep.'

Maar nu, minister Asscher, ik heb nog niet van u gehoord dat de Nederlandse regering het toejuicht dat de 'Joodse staat' zijn excuses heeft aangeboden voor deze terreuraanslag, er is geen ander woord voor. Waarom zwijgt u als vice-premier die maar al te graag in de publiciteit komt? Ik stel u die vraag omdat de 'Turkse jongeren' tot wie u zich richt van mening zijn dat voor hen de door de westerse politici met de mond beleden universele rechten van de mens niet gelden. Immers, alleen als de rechten van joden, christenen en atheisten uit het Westen of in Israel worden geschonden komen westerse politici onmiddellijk in actie. Anders niet zodra Israel erbij betrokken is. Deze vorm van tribalisme past niet in de moderne tijd. Dat wil zeggen: dit tribalisme leidt onvermijdelijk tot een diepe haat tegen de westerse hypocrisie. Haat en weerzin bij onder andere 'Turkse jongeren' die noodgedwongen en logischerwijze even tribaal reageren als u. Wie anders moeten voor hun universele rechten opkomen zolang westerse autoriteiten Israel belonen voor hun terreur tegen islamieten? Daarmee vergoeilijk ik het antisemitisme niet, ik probeer het te verklaren. Hoe zou u hebben gereageerd als een Turks doodseskader negen joden met een nekschot had vermoord zonder dat het Westen zijn mond opendeed? Daarom mijn vraag: waarom zwijgt u nu over deze terreurdaad van de bevriende natie Israel die notabene door Nederland zelfs militair wordt gesteund? Als u werkelijk het al dan niet vermeende 'antisemitisme' wilt bestrijden, waarom zwijgt u dan nu over de Israelische terreur?

Zionist Terror 116

MARCH 22, 2013

Obama: the world’s greatest peace fraud

  EDITOR

US president fails to demand halt to illegal settlements

“There is no peace process, it’s an annexation process…”

By Stuart Littlewood

Israeli peace activist Miko Peled did not mince his words when he said:

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is, politically, a toxic wasteland that no US president in his right mind would want to clean up. It has become a vicious cycle of deceit and double standards, and it will contaminate any US politician who tries to clean it up.

One after another, American presidents run away from the challenge.

And so it has been with Barack Obama. This week the world’s greatest peace fraud came to the Holy Land and flunked it. Frankly, if that’s the best he can do after four years in the job he has no business calling himself a world leader.

AIPAC – the stinking swamp in the White House backyard

But I don’t necessarily agree with Peled’s remark. Any US president who fails to drain the stinking swamp in his backyard – i.e. the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) breeding ground – deserves to be consigned to the wastepaper basket of history as a political pansy.

The president who ruthlessly cleans up, however, would be revered big-time.

Take the Chuck Hagel confirmation fiasco. Here in the UK we watched with bewilderment and disbelief. Of course, it’s easy to criticize from this distance, but remember that we too have a Zio-infestation at the heart of government.

At the hearing Hagel appeared flat-footed and unprepared for obvious questions. Even if it was expedient to play the Zionist lackey he needn’t have come across quite so wimpish. The public don’t necessarily understand such chicanery. Even if they did, the spectacle of belly-crawling is disgusting. Who could blame them for wondering what sort of impression Hagel was likely to create in the diplomatic drawing rooms of the world?

A more robust plan would have sent in a stalking-horse, specially trained by George Galloway (and suitably compensated) to swat the Inquisitorial bar-flies for the threat to US interests that they are. This sacrificial candidate’s fate would be crucifixion and rejection, but the process would have electrified the media, American voters and world audiences, and inflicted serious damage on the Zio-lobby’s hirelings. With their fangs drawn and venom spent, Obama could then have put forward his “real” candidate with dignity.

As it was, the lack of steel is now indelibly etched on everyone’s memory in the US and abroad.

Miko Peled is a remarkable Israeli Jew, the son of an Israeli general and himself a former soldier in the Israeli armed forces. He calls the Israeli army “one of the best trained and best equipped and best fed terrorist organizations in the world”. In a fascinating talk (see video above), he explains:

The name of the game: erasing Palestine, getting rid of the people and de-Arabizing the country… When people talk about the possibility of Israel somehow giving up the West Bank for a Palestinian state, if it wasn’t so sad it would be funny. It shows a complete misunderstanding of the objective of Zionism and the Zionist state.

You couldn’t find a more authentic insider source. He confirms what many have known and been saying for years.

And in this excellent “Crosstalk” programme (see video on the right), “Obama’s Israel trip”, Norman Finkelstein and Mouin Rabbani strip away the arrant nonsense politicians use to conceal the truth of what’s happening in the Holy Land. Answering the question “Why is Obama going to the Middle East now and what does he want to achieve?”, here are some of their comments.

Rabbani begins by saying the peace process is not on the agenda. The Israeli government, post-election, is too new to have any serious discussion. In the past the Palestinian leadership has favoured talks simply as a distraction from the awful situation on the ground. But now things are so dire that renewed talks might pose more of a threat that an opportunity to the leadership.

Finkelstein maintains there is no reason why Obama would wish to talk about a peace process that interferes with “the serious work” of annexing the West Bank. In any case the Palestinian people have been “pacified” and the Palestinian Authority can’t do anything without US permission.

There never was a peace process, he says, it has always been an annexation process and right now there are no restraints, no inhibitions on Israel’s pursuit of this.

“Internationalize” the Palestine question

Finkelstein points to the shift in public opinion against Israel in recent years. But two inhibiting factors remain: (1) the US government and its vetoes at the UN, and (2) the Palestinians themselves, who are in no frame of mind to organize mass disobedience and resistance, which in Finkelstein’s view is “the only thing that can possibly force Israel to withdraw”. It is up to the Palestinians, he suggests, to mobilize these forces and to trigger the worldwide support movements. A combination of mass resistance by the Palestinian people in concert with support from the United Nations, the international community and public opinion, is the only likely solution. It would isolate the US and force an Israeli withdrawal.  This prospect becomes more real as Israel’s credibility dwindles.

A combination of mass resistance by the Palestinian people in concert with support from the United Nations, the international community and public opinion, is the only likely solution.

Finkelstein is of the opinion that the sham peace process – “political theatre”, as he calls it – has poisoned and confused the minds of normally intelligent people.

Rabbani feels that the Palestinian leadership should disengage from the meaningless diplomacy sponsored by the US and move towards an “internationalization” of the question and solve it on the basis of international consensus.

The video ought to be compulsory viewing for those who still harp on about restarting ‘peace talks’.

On the ground Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was reported to have signalled a willingness to return to peace talks if Israel agreed to an “unannounced ” (i.e. secret) settlement freeze during the period of negotiations. At the same time, the democratically elected prime minister of Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, who perversely is not invited to meet Obama because he’s the wrong flavour (Hamas), declared: “We believe American policies perpetuate the Israeli occupation and settlements in Palestine under a slogan of peace.”

Another Hamas spokesman, Dr Sami Zuhri, said that Obama’s renewed commitment to Israel’s security while ignoring the Palestinians’ sufferings affirmed his country’s blind support for Israel. This exposed as nonsense any idea that America could play a positive role in the region. He urged an end to security coordination between the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah and the Israeli occupation.

Respected Palestinian writer Khalid Amayreh remarked that Obama was expected to cajole the weak and pliant Palestinian leadership of Mahmoud Abbas to give “peace” another chance by returning to futile negotiations with Israel while the latter continued to steal more Palestinian land and build more Jewish colonies for fanatical Jewish settlers.

So what actually happened when Obama arrived?

As soon as he touched down, Obama was gushing. “Why does the United States stand so strongly, so firmly with the State of Israel?” he asked. “The answer is simple. We stand together because we share a common story – patriots determined to be a free people in our land, pioneers who forged a nation.”

Somehow, I doubt if ordinary Americans would wish to be compared to the invading Zionist thugs who drove the Palestinians off their lands, bulldozed their homes and cruelly imprisoned those that have remained in the shredded remnants of their territory for the last 65 years – and did it with billions of dollars squeezed from taxpaying Americans.

According to the Ma’an news agency on 21 March, Obama did finally say something about Israel’s settlements.

One of the challenges has been continued settlement activity in the West Bank area, and I’ve been clear with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leadership that it has been United States policy not just in my administration but all preceding administrations that we do not consider continued settlement activity to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace. So I don’t think there’s been any confusion about what our position is.

Settlements are illegal, nothing less, and Obama needs to remind Netanyahu (and himself) of that fact. There remains considerable confusion over the US position, especially since Reuters reported that Obama stopped short of calling for a halt to settlement expansion and offered no new ideas on how to get the two sides negotiating again. “If the expectation is we can only have direct negotiations when everything is settled ahead of time, then there’s no point in the negotiations,” he said.

No point at all, Mr Obama. Most of it was settled long ago by international law and a raft of UN resolutions. Upholding those rulings is, of course, a precondition to any negotiation.

Why insist on more “negotiations without preconditions” unless it’s to buy Israel time to complete its illegal annexation?

http://www.redressonline.com/2013/03/obama-the-worlds-greatest-peace-fraud/

Irak 420

Paul heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "Rob Vreeken. Een Volkskrant Schurk 6" achtergelaten: 

Hoi Stan

Vreekens moreel idiote geraas doet mij sterk denken aan de "genocidal fury" van Tom Friedman: 

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=943

Vergeet niet dat de Volkskrant-redactie, net als de rest van de Nederlandse "kwaliteitspers", een kinderlijke adoratie koestert voor de New York Times. Dus wat Vreeken waarschijnlijk doet is "meedoen met de echt grote jongens". Ook ik kan geen ironie ontdekken in zijn warrige narcistische geschrijf. Alleen frustratie en morele en andere idiotie, afgevuurd vanaf een comfortabele businesstribune. Precies zoals bij Friedman zelf. En ook zoals bij Friedman zelf lijkt het motto, hoe uit- en onzinniger de geschoten bokken hoe beter... 

Barbarian Rhapsody: Ten Years Deeper Into Hell

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD

SATURDAY, 16 MARCH 2013 16:40

All forms of political media -- in print, on line, on the air -- have been awash in recent weeks with retrospectives on the tenth anniversary of the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Amidst the mountainous heap of drivel and falsehood such an occasion inevitably produces among the vast and vapid army of analysts who happily spend their days chewing the cud of whatever happens to be the conventional wisdom of the day, there have been a few outstanding pieces that put this continuing war crime in stark perspective. One of the better short pieces I've seen on the subject comes from -- of all people -- an actual Iraqi. Sami Ramadani, a dissident forced into exile by Saddam, has been one of the most insightful observers -- and vociferous opponents -- of the atrocities inflicted on his country by Western elites and their local collaborators (including, of course, for many decades, Saddam Hussein). From the Guardian: Ten years on from the shock and awe of the 2003 Bush and Blair war – which followed 13 years of murderous sanctions, and 35 years of Saddamist dictatorship – my tormented land, once a cradle of civilisation, is staring into the abyss. Wanton imperialist intervention and dictatorial rule have together been responsible for the deaths of more than a million people since 1991. And yet, according to both Tony Blair and the former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, the "price is worth it". Blair, whom most Iraqis regard as a war criminal, is given VIP treatment by a culpable media. Iraqis listen in disbelief when he says: "I feel responsibility but no regret for removing Saddam Hussein." (As if Saddam and his henchmen were simply whisked away, leaving the people to build a democratic state). It enrages us to see Blair build a business empire, capitalising on his role in piling up more Iraqi skulls than even Saddam managed. As an exile, I was painfully aware of Saddam's crimes, which for me started with the disappearance from Baghdad's medical college of my dearest school friend, Hazim. The Iraqi people are fully aware, too, that Saddam committed all his major crimes while an ally of western powers. On the eve of the 2003 invasion I wrote this for the Guardian: "In Iraq, the US record speaks for itself: it backed Saddam's party, the Ba'ath, to capture power in 1963, murdering thousands of socialists, communists and democrats; it backed the Ba'ath party in 1968 when Saddam was installed as vice-president; it helped him and the Shah of Iran in 1975 to crush the Kurdish nationalist movement; it increased its support for Saddam in 1979…helping him launch his war of aggression against Iran in 1980; it backed him throughout the horrific eight years of war (1980 to 1988), in which a million Iranians and Iraqis were slaughtered, in the full knowledge that he was using chemical weapons and gassing Kurds and Marsh Arabs; it encouraged him in 1990 to invade Kuwait…; it backed him in 1991 when Bush [senior] suddenly stopped the war, exactly 24 hours after the start of the great March uprising that engulfed the south and Iraqi Kurdistan…" But when it was no longer in their interests to back him, the US and UK drowned Iraq in blood. …We haven't even counted the dead yet, let alone the injured, displaced and traumatised. Countless thousands are still missing. Of the more than 4 million refugees, at least a million are yet to go back to their homeland, and there still about a million internal refugees. On an almost daily basis, explosions and shootings continue to kill the innocent. … Lack of electricity, clean water and other essential services continues to hit millions of impoverished and unemployed people, in one of the richest countries on the planet. Women and children pay the highest price. Women's rights, and human rights in general, are daily suppressed. And what of democracy, supposedly the point of it all? The US-led occupying authorities nurtured a "political process" and a constitution designed to sow sectarian and ethnic discord. Having failed to crush the resistance to direct occupation, they resorted to divide-and-rule to keep their foothold in Iraq. Using torture, sectarian death squads and billions of dollars, the occupation has succeeded in weakening the social fabric and elevating a corrupt ruling class that gets richer by the day, salivating at the prospect of acquiring a bigger share of Iraq's natural resources, which are mostly mortgaged to foreign oil companies and construction firms. Warring sectarian and ethnic forces, either allied to or fearing US influence, dominate the dysfunctional and corrupt Iraqi state institutions, but the US embassy in Baghdad – the biggest in the world – still calls the shots. Iraq is not really a sovereign state, languishing under the punitive Chapter VII of the UN charter. Yes, it has certainly been, as Barack Obama memorably characterized it, a "remarkable achievement." It is also, more and more, a forgotten "achievement." America's amnesia regarding the war crime in Iraq and its continuing ramifications -- not only the repression and death still going on there, but also the catastrophic impact of this atrocity on America itself, including the tsunami of suicide, homelessness and PTSD among its soldiers, and the back-breaking costs of this orgy of corruption and war-profiteering -- is indeed remarkable. It is no longer a reality -- a living, anguished, ongoing human tragedy -- but simply fodder for commentary, for partisan point-scoring, for barroom blather. This has always been the case with our misbegotten wars of imperial domination (for an especially acute and egregious example of our chronic amnesia, see this review of Nick Turse's new book, Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam), going back to the 19th century. And the "paradigm-changing" iadvent of the internet has done nothing to change that; despite today's easy access to unprecedented levels of information about the realities of the Iraq war (and other high crimes and atrocities), the amnesia and willful ignorance remains as profound as ever. So here we are. Ten years on from the frenzied paroxysm (or was it an orgasm?) of mass violence -- which was itself the culmination of years of the bipartisan war-by-sanctions that American officials have openly acknowledged killed more than half a million Iraqi children -- what is the central "moral" issue of our national politics today? This once-unimaginable, horribly depraved and obscene question: Should the president be allowed to murder any American citizen he chooses, or should there perhaps be be some kind of secret Congressional oversight of the secret killing program? (The idea of restricting the president's power to kill any filthy foreigner he chooses is not in question anywhere in our national politics, of course; Rand Paul wasn't filibustering against that idea. No, any debate on the "ethics" of state murder is restricted to its application to Americans, who, as we know, are the only fully human beings on the face of the earth.) Given the current trajectory of our plunge into barbarism, I predict that in just a few years we'll be "debating" whether the president has the right to stick the severed heads of "terrorists" on spikes outside the White House, or if the heads should be passed around discreetly to members of the relevant Senate committees before being dumped in the ocean. http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2310-barbarian-rhapsody-ten-years-deeper-into-hell.html#comment-838944701

Hotel Terminus

Hotel Terminus bericht:

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH OVER OBAMA?

"Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch prijst de Amerikaanse president Barack Obama voor zijn uitspraken over het homohuwelijk. Dat heeft de beweging donderdag in een verklaring laten weten."

Kijk, dat is weer zo typisch voor onze commerciële massamedia. De Barack Obama Goed Nieuws Show. Die volgde op de George Bush Goed Nieuws Show. Jarenlang levert de mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch ongezouten kritiek op president Barack Obama en zijn beleid. En daar lezen we weinig of niets over in Nederland. Maar opeens vandaag in het Parool: Human Rights Watch prijst uitspraken Obama over homohuwelijk.

A University of California at Davis police officer uses pepper spray to try to break up a group of peaceful demonstrators on campus on 9 November 2011. A total of 11 people received medical treatment on the campus and two were transported to the hospital.

Ook het alarmerende rapport over de VS van de VN Mensenrechtenraad uit 2010 werd in onze nieuwsmedia unaniem verzwegen. Het meldt systematische mensenrechtenschending, martelen, wijdverbreid racisme, discriminatie en politiegeweld.

Enkele feiten over het beleid van Mr. Hopey Changey:, die het beleid van Bush overtreffen, leest u hier.

Wat de Nederlands pers o.a. van Human Rights Watch over Obama heeft overgeslagen:

HRW 1 mei 2012
US: White House is 'puzzling' on racial profiling

HRW 8 maart 2012
Are Afghan women better off after a decade of war?

HRW 8 februari 2012
US: Wrong Time for Bahrain Arms Deal

HRW 16 december 2011
Letter to President Obama: End Detention Without Trial and Close Guantanamo

HRW 5 december 2011
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act

HWR 17 september 2011
Obama cozies up to Central Asian dictator

HRW 16 juni 2011
Letter to President Obama Seeking Recognition of Those Who Opposed Torture

HRW 7 december 2010
Letter to Obama on Targeted Killings and Drones

Etcetera. Ook het alarmerende jaarrapport over het Land of the free in 2011 van Human Rights Watch werd in onze "kwaliteitskranten" totaal genegeerd.

Robert Fisk was in 2009 te gast in het Belgische televisieprogramma Phara. Waarom hebben wij op de Nederlandse televisie nooit van deze erudiete gasten in onze praatprogramma's?

http://eindpunt.blogspot.nl/2012/05/human-rights-watch-over-obama.html

Rob Vreeken. Een Volkskrant Schurk 6

2. 
   

   
   

   Ik ben bang dat Vreeken lijdt aan columnisme en dat hij aan ironie doet. Beseft blijkbaar niet helemaal dat zoiets niet van een buitenlandredacteur verwacht wordt. En verder een dosis doornbossisme: ik ben er geweest dus ik weet hoe het zit in Libië. Daar zijn vrije verkiezingen geweest ook al is het niemand opgevallen!

   
   

   Blij dat ik niet meer meebetaal aan zijn loonzakje. 

   adr

   
   

   
   

   
   

   adr,

   
   

   ik denk dat hij niet aan ironie doet, hij doet alsof hij het doet, en is door de dubbele bodem van de ironie gezakt, zoals mulisch ooit eens heeft beschreven. hij meent wat hij schrijft. het probleem voor hem is dat hij een grove stilist is, niet echt kan schrijven, waardoor het bij hem zo duidelijk wordt en vaak verkeerd is geformuleerd. 

   
   

   Stan

   
   

   Om te voorkomen dat lezers gaan denken dat Rob Vreeken van de Volkskrant ironisch is, heb ik al eerder Mulisch geciteerd. 

In ‘Het ironische van de ironie, over het geval G.K. van het Reve,’ schreef Harry Mulisch aan het eind van de jaren zeventig over het racisme en antisemitisme van de ‘grote volksschrijver,’ Gerard Reve, het volgende:

1. ‘De ironie leidt to parodie, de parodie leidt tot identificatie – dat is de onwrikbare wet, waaraan Van het Reve nog het meest onderhorig is… Zo wordt het spel ernst. De corpsstudent speelt net zo lang de man met de grote bek, tot hij het is. Dat is het ironische van de ironie: dat zij het plotseling niet meer is. Hij is als het ware door de dubbele bodem van de ironie gezakt. Wie ironisch spreekt, zegt het tegendeel van wat hij meent, maar zodanig, dat de ander dat doorziet. Van het Reve zegt wat hij meent, maar zodanig, dat de ander dat niet doorziet en denkt nog steeds met ironie te doen te hebben… Als hij… schrijft: ‘'Ik vind, dat de arbeiders in bepaalde aparte wijken zouden moeten wonen, die ze alleen op weg van of naar hun werk zouden mogen verlaten, & verder alleen met speciale verlofpasjes’' - dan is dat eenvoudig zijn mening, geen grap, geen fantasie.’

   
   

   
   

   Vreeken's journalistieke formuleringen zijn 'geen grap, geen fantasie,' hij meent wat hij schrijft, hij is door de dubbele bodem van de ironie gezakt. Vreeken is niet alleen een schurk, hij is een racist die bij gebrek aan argumenten met beelden werkt, wanneer hij schrijft:

   
   

   Vergeet niet dat de Syriërs Arabieren zijn: een hoop poeha om de mannelijke eer te redden, maar als het erop aankomt springen ze kermend op hun kameel – hun ware geheime wapen.

   
   

   

   Zijn beschrijving sluit naadloos aan op de hedendaagse platitudes die in de Nederlandse politiek en de Nederlandse commerciele mainstreammedia regelmatig te berde worden gebracht, zeker op de opiniepagina van de Volkskrant sinds de komst in 2006 van de extreem rechtse Chris Rutenfrans. 'De ironie leidt tot parodie, de parodie leidt tot identificatie.' Wat op het eerste gezicht een parodie mocht lijken, blijkt bij nadere beschouwing bloedserieus te zijn bedoeld. Om dit toe te lichten citeer ik opnieuw Rob Vreeken. In de column die ik hierboven heb afgedrukt staat onder andere:

   
   

   In een virtuele wereld waarin veel 'nieuws' met knippen en plakken wordt gerecycled, zijn waarnemers ter plekke van onschatbare waarde.

   
   

   Hier is geen enkele sprake van ironie en ook niet wanneer hij allereerst zichzelf noemt als iemand 'van onschatbare waarde,' want de volgende regel luidt:

   
   

   Zelf heb ik daar als verslaggever mijn steentje bij gedragen door een reeks bezoeken aan onder andere Libie. 

   
   

   Zo, opnieuw, geen zweempje ironie. En ook in de daarop volgende zin zit geen greintje ironie, wanneer Vreeken met een kwalificatie komt.

   
   

   Het is vanuit die deskundigheid dat ik een oordeel kan vellen over het stuk dat Martin Janssen een jaar geleden in de Volkskrant schreef over dat land: baarlijke nonsens.

   
   

   Hoewel de Volkskrant-lezer eerst heeft vernomen dat Janssen een arabist is die 'tot voor kort in Damascus [woonde],' en Vreeken 'zijn artikelen altijd met grote belangstelling' heeft gelezen, wordt Janssen ineens afgeschilderd als iemand die 'baarlijke nonsens' produceert. Die omslag is het resultaat van Vreeken's opvatting dat de islamisten helemaal geen invloed in Libie uitoefenen, omdat ze 'in Libie een grote verkiezingsnederlaag hebben geleden en... het voormalig verzet wordt gedomineerd door gematigde types die heimelijk dromen van lidmaatschap van de Europese Unie,' zo weet Vreeken met grote stelligheid te vertellen nadat hij korte tijd Libie had bezocht. Nog geen maand na zijn beweringen sloegen de -- volgens Vreeken -- uitgespeelde islamisten hard toe door de Amerikaanse ambassadeur uit de weg te ruimen. En een paar maanden later moesten met spoed westerse troepen naar Mali worden overgevlogen om te voorkomen dat uit Libie afkomstige rebellen het land zouden overnemen nu Gadaffi's troepen  hen niet meer konden bestrijden. Intussen is de binnenlandse situatie in Libie net zo chaotisch als in Irak en Afghanistan. Op 7 maart jongstleden berichtte de Britse kwaliteitskrant de Guardian: 

   
   

   Police and army units have been deployed in strength across the Libyan capital, Tripoli, after an attack by rogue militias forced the country's legislature to consider suspending its activities.

   Several hundred militiamen and protesters attacked the national congress building late on Tuesday night and the car of the parliamentary speaker Mohammed Magarief, who is effectively Libya's acting head of state, was hit by more than a dozen bullets.

   "We might suspend our work until we find a solution, we've been attacked," said Mohammed Toumi, an independent congress member.

   The attacks were launched by supporters of a proposed bill, the isolation law, that would purge Gaddafi-era officials from public office, with demonstrators fearing the law would be watered down by the 200-member congress.

   Security fears saw congress move its session on Tuesday to the Meteorological Institute south of the city in a bid to avoid violent protests which erupted as members arrived to debate the bill... 

   "There's no army protecting us, there's no police protecting us, the ministries didn't do anything to protect us, we cannot work in this environment," said Toumi, who chaired the isolation law committee but has resigned citing security fears... 

   Libya's government, which relies on militias for the bulk of its forces, has yet to explain why security units did not protect congress, or its failure to guarantee that a new vote planned for the bill on Sunday will get that protection.

   On Thursday a dozen beige armed pickup trucks mounted with machine guns were deployed around the office of the prime minister, Ali Zaidan, with similar numbers at the city centre Corinthian hotel, home to many diplomats.

   The isolation law is proving the most divisive issue debated by congress since it was elected last July. The terms of the law would ban a swath of former Gaddafi officials from the government, civil service, police, judiciary and banking.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/07/libyan-national-congress-rogue-militias 

   Nog wat oudere berichten die haaks staan op de beweringen van Rob Vreeken: 

   US-Backed Terrorists Murder US Ambassador in Libya

   By Tony Cartalucci

   Global Research, September 12, 2012

   
   

   Url of this article:

   http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-backed-terrorists-murder-us-ambassador-in-libya/

   
   

   Al Qaeda and NATO's Pan-Arab Terrorist Blitzkrieg

   
   

   Terrorists Supported by NATO Target Syria and Algeria

   
   

   http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32560

   
   

   NATO USING AL QAEDA “RAT LINES” TO FLOOD SYRIA WITH FOREIGN TERRORISTS

   
   

   
   

   2007-2008 US West Point reports reveal Al Qaeda network behind NATO's so-called "freedom fighters." Extremists in Syria were behind Iraq War foreign terrorist influx, not Syrian government.

   http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood-syria-with-foreign-terrorists/5309573

   
   

   Human Rights Watch accuses US of covering up extent of waterboarding