Har Schlingmann kurage att sparka Carl Bildt?

När man är Sveriges utrikesminister och sköter vår utrikespolitik med twitter och blogg så har man uppenbarligen någons fulla förtroende och godkännande.

Hur ska man annars förklara att samma person som satt i Lundin Oil's styrelse när det gjordes affärer med galningen och terroriststödjaren - diktator Mohammar Ghadaffi, några år senare häver ur sig denna mening på twitter..

"Swedish Social Democrats want to send roses to Gaddafi - wants to end Swedish role in UNSCR-supporting missions. Wrong signal at wrong time."

Detta är alltså vår utrikesminister.... sorgligt.

För inte så många år sedan ansåg jag Carl Bildt vara en av de största statsmännen vi haft i landet.
Idag anser jag honom vara en pajas.
Rik, med inflytande och mäktiga vänner.
Men ändock en pajas.

Varför jag skriver att Schlingmann ska sparka Carl Bildt och inte Reinfeldt?
Jag vill att den som håller i trådarna gör det, inte marionetten i andra änden.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , ,

Det var som fan, han var vid liv.

Måste säga att jag är kraftigt förvånad över det faktum att Usama Bin Laden är död.
Har varit övertygad under lång tid att han antingen blev sprängd i bitar under attackerna mot Bora Bora-grottorna 02-03 eller dog av komplikationerna av sin njursjukdom för länge sedan.

Men där hade jag fel.

Så nu lär jag få höra det från personer som tycker om att slänga det i ansiktet på mig, men det får jag vär bjuda på.

Så, grattis till USA att dom till slut lyckades ha död på en av sina FD anställda.

AB, SvD, Expr, DN.
Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , ,

Please learn from Iraq and Afghanistan, don't overstay your welcome.

Finally Col. Ghadaffi seems to get what he deserves.
But please, as soon as he and the military dictatorship is overrun, hand over the power to the people of Libya.

Don't overstay your welcome

AB, Expr, expr2, SvD.
Svensson, Martin Moberg, Jinge, Zac, DeepEdition, Kent Persson.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , , , ,

Khadaffi pratar svenska?

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , ,

Way over the line Obama, way fkng over the line Obama.

According to the Obama official Jeh Johnson, Dr Martin Luther King jr would have been proud over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is so far over the line of decency that Mr Jeh Johnson assraped the sign marking the line when passing.

Dr King is deceased, you should restrain your expressions on what he might have been pro or con to subjects he actually have said or written about.

I give you this speech that he made about the Vietnam war on April 4, 1967.
Read it and then say he would have approved of todays US wars.

(Courtesy of BRC-NEWS, if copying do so in its full length with proper attributions, do not alter in any way other than formatting)

BRC-NEWS: Black Radical Congress - International News/Alerts/Announcements
Subscribe: Email "subscribe brc-news" to <[email protected]>

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.


The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.


Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.


Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.


In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.


I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.


Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.


Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.




The Importance of Vietnam

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.


Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would never live on the same block in Detroit. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.


My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected and angry young men I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.


For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself unless the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:


O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.


As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the "Vietcong" or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?


Finally, as I try to delineate for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.


This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.




Strange Liberators

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond to compassion my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.


They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony.


Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.


For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam.


Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of the reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.


After the French were defeated it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva agreements. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators -- our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly routed out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords and refused even to discuss reunification with the north. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by U.S. influence and then by increasing numbers of U.S. troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change -- especially in terms of their need for land and peace.


The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy -- and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged.


They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.


What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?


We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only non-Communist revolutionary political force -- the unified Buddhist church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men. What liberators?


Now there is little left to build on -- save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers.


Perhaps the more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front -- that strangely anonymous group we call VC or Communists? What must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the south? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the north" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.


How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent Communist and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will have no part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them -- the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again and then shore it up with the power of new violence?


Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.


So, too, with Hanoi. In the north, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which would have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again.


When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. Also it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva agreements concerning foreign troops, and they remind us that they did not begin to send in any large number of supplies or men until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.


Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard of the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the north. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor weak nation more than eight thousand miles away from its shores.


At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.


This Madness must cease

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.


This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:


"Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."


If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.


The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.


In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:


  1. End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
  2. Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
  3. Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
  4. Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.
  5. Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary.



Protesting the war

Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.


As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.


There is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter the struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. Such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.


In 1957 a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisors" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counter-revolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Colombia and why American napalm and green beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."


Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment.


I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.


A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.


America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.


This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove thosse conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.




The people are important

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgement against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every moutain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."


A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.


This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept -- so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force -- has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:


Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.



Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in ourinventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."


We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.


We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.


Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the callling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.


As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:


Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah,
Off'ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.


Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Med yrkesarmé och krigsdirektiv från regeringen så har det bara blivit värre.

Hårdare strider i Afghanistan mellan svenska krigsmakten och afghanska talibaner/rebeller/krigsherrar.

Anledningen till att jag skriver tre alternativ är för att ingen vet egentligen vilken av grupperingarna som striderna står mot.
Sannolikheten är stor att det är Talibaner, men det kan lika gärna vara rebeller som för tillfället allierat sig med talibanerna mot vad de anser är en ockupationsmakt som att det är krigsherrar som vill undergräva statsmakten.

Men det spelar mindre roll för soldaterna som är där.
Direktiven från regeringen har gjort att de är i större fara än någonsin, de har fortfarande inte tillräckligt med skydd eller tillräcklig vapenkraft.
Jag vill hävda att det i dagsläget är ren tur att fler svenskar inte skickats hem i kistor.

Detta är ett krig som inte kan vinnas eftersom man har, som det amerikanska uttrycket säger "Overstayed their welcome".

Talibanerna var i det närmaste utplånade efter första månadens strider i november/december 2001(*).
Nu 9 år senare ser vi resultatet av att inte lämna över landet till dess medborgare.
Talibanerna omgrupperade(*) och är starkare än någonsin, vi har krigsherrar som tar varje chans att skaffa sig själva mer makt och en Pakistansk säkerhetstjänst som bekostar flera grupperingar.

När det talas om det positiva som sker i Afghanistan idag så handlar det om att fler går i skola idag än i början av kriget.
Jag tror det är en pyrrhusseger eftersom det krävs en konstant ockupering av Afghanskt territorium för att underhålla den vinsten, något som kanske är teoretiskt möjligt men som är rent praktiskt väldigt svårt.
Det kostar enorma summor pengar och det kommer att kosta mer och mer i liv (räknat för den egna nationen) vilket i sin tur kommer att krävas högre och högre svansföring från hökarna i regeringen för att väga upp.

Det sägs att man är opatriotisk och att man önskar livet ur kvinnor och barn om man inte är för krigsinsatsen.
Det är krigshetsarna som inte vill ta eget ansvar för den misslyckade insatsen.
Man kan inte skylla usel taktik(*) på de som inte ville ha en fortsatt insats.

Varje argument som sägs för Afghanistaninsatsen har sagts förut, skillnaden idag är att det finns PR-folk som ger direktiv hur man ska säga det och hur man ska misstänkliggöra motståndarna.

Kort sagt, detta är ett Vietnamkrig i multiformat.

Men kan vi dra oss ur?
Jag anser att vi inte skulle skickat dit trupper till att börja med, det är inte vårt krig och har aldrig varit.

Men det ger inte svar på frågan hur vi ska agera idag.

Washington post.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

"Du är i Israel, du har inga rättigheter"

Från Edda Manga's artikel i GP.

"Kvinnan som utfärdade min häktningsorder förklarade till exempel för mig att jag hade kommit olagligt in på israeliskt territorium.

– Nej det gjorde jag inte. Jag befann mig på internationellt vatten och jag kan bevisa det.

– Det här är ingen dialog, jag informerar dig om fakta. Vill du eller vill du inte veta varför du är häktad?

– Jag behöver inte lyssna på dina lögner. Du vet lika väl som jag att jag befann mig på internationellt vatten. Jag tvingades hit under vapenhot. Jag är kidnappad. Det är jag som har utsatts för brott. Era soldater kom maskerade som banditer i skydd av mörkret och dödade folk.

– Lögner? Nej, det vet jag inte. Och jag tänker inte diskutera med dig. Ni attackerade våra soldater. Vi var tvungna att försvara oss.

– Vem tog sig in i vems båt? Jag har inte begått något brott, du har ingen grund att häkta mig, jag vill ha min konsul och min advokat här. Jag har rätt till det.

– Du är i Israel. Du har inga rättigheter."

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , ,

Alla på väg ut ur Afghanistan, utom Sverige?

Minns ni häromdagen att Tolgfors sprutade ur sig ord  om den svenska insatsen i Afghanistan som ska utökas?

Det visar sig nu att alla andra är på väg ut.

Svensk yrkesmilitär får utökade befogenheter, utökade anslag och får numera sättas in inom landet.

Jag känner en stor olustkänsla, som fackföreningsman och medborgarrättskämpe inför detta.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , ,

Om en soldat utsätts för tillräckligt mycket....

DN rapporterar att Amerikanska soldater begår självmord i en takt som inte setts till sedan Vietnam-krigets dagar.

Och jag tycker inte det är så konstigt.

De rapporter som kommer från Irak och Afghanistan om "misstag" och mer medvetna "misstag" där soldater ser sina kamrater meja ner oskyldiga, skratta åt svårt skadade och tortyr som förhörsmetoder, så är det inte så konstigt att många inte klarar av att leva med vad de gjort.

Och Sverige ska nu utöka sin insats.....

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

Afghanistan har en lång historia av två saker.

Afghanistan har en lång historia av två saker.

Ockupation och ledare som gör vad som helst för makt.

Nu sedan "försvarsmakten" har fått nya direktiv, som ger dem tillstånd att planera och utföra attacker som tidigare inte varit förenligt med uppdraget som fredsbevarande styrka (av en händelse ganska omedelbart efter de gick från att vara en folklig försvarsmakt till att vara yrkesarme *host*) så är vi en del av ockupationen.

Vi var där från början för att försvara civilbefolkningen, vilket har blivit ett sekundärt uppdrag då vi nu ska bistå USA's anfallstrupper med vad de behöver, inklusive svensk trupp.

Ledarskapet som skrek efter hjälp har blivit en parodi på demokrati, för att behålla makten stiftas det medborgarrätts- och demokratifientliga lagar, det samarbetas aktivt med narkotikakarteller och nu senast även med talibanledare.

Resten av världen är på väg att dra sig ur, Sverige leker GWB-taktik och utökar styrkan.

Ren idioti.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Hur stor kontroll har de folkvalda i Israel över militären egentligen?

Enligt uppgifter i Haaretz, förmedlade genom DN, så sket den Israeliska marinen fullständigt i den Israeliska regeringens order.

Vilket får mig att undra hur stor kontroll Knesset egentligen har över Israel egentligen?
Det är militären som krävt censurlagar mot den fria pressen, det är militären som struntar i parlamentariska order.
Har det skett en statskupp i det tysta?

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , ,

Vem tror att Israel och Palestina är förmögna att lösa detta själva?

Med StG-bordningarna i färskt minne, Gaza-invasionen nyåret 08-09 och nu en fiskare/terrorist (beroende på vem du frågar) som får stå för det senaste i raden av illdåd.

Vem tror egentligen längre på att Israel och Palestina kan sköta detta själva?

FN måste få mandat att upprätta en säkerhetszon mellan Gaza, Västbanken och Israel.
Samt patrullera havet utanför, med tillstånd att genomsöka de fartyg som åker in och ur en upprättad säkerhetszon.

Valet är annars att fortsätta tillåta blockaden, att fortsätta tillåta "raketregnet", att fortsätta tillåta lidandet.

Valet för mig är lätt, men jag vill se argumenten mot, att Israel fortsätter att ha ensamt mandat på såväl land, hav, luft och information.

En sak är säker, om Iran tillåts spela en hjälteroll för området, vilket de nu försöker göra, då har vi en krutdurk som är nukleärt farlig.

AB, DN, Expr.

Andra åsikter och vinklar.
Progressiva USA, Homo Politicus, Wiseman, Martin Moberg, Adam Cwejman, Signerat Kjellberg.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

De skottsäkra västarna och andra skrönor som sprids. (Ship To Gaza.)

Det har varit en lång dag, så först nu fick jag tillfälle att ta tag i det som hävdats vara falska bilder på skottsäkra västar.

Detta skriver Helsingborgs Dagblad.


"Att just ”Mavi Marmara” var först i bordningsräden beror med största säkerhet på att just det fartyget hade en satellitsändare som omedelbart måste slås ut. Och med kraftiga störningssändare kunde man sedan också se till att inga mobilsamtal, bloggar eller twittermeddelanden kunde skickas ut. Ut kom bara bilder och information från Israels armé.

Men med fotografiet ovan hade man oflytet att glömma att radera dess digitala basinformation. Av den kan man utläsa att bilden togs 4 år, 3 månader och 21 dagar innan bordningen. Den 7 februari 2006.

Av vem och i vilket syfte framgår dock inte. Bilden kan betraktas på http://i.imgur.com/u9Kul.jpg.

På nätet pågår debatten om hur detta var möjligt.

Utan störningssändare."


Tyvärr är det en brutal tystnad som råder från stora delar av rikspressen.

Jag kan inte säga att allt som skickas ut från den Israeliska militären är falsk information, däremot verkar det vara att några personer vill förstärka bilden med hjälp av saker som aldrig funnits på skeppen, uttalanden som aldrig gjorts och falska inspelningar.

Vilket gör att inget av det som slipper ut från censuren kan tas på allvar, ens om det vore sant
Speciellt som resultaten från obduktionerna nu kommer ut, som visar på rena avrättningar.

Men vi ska vara tacksamma för att internet är relativt fritt, utan alla dessa människor som gör efterforskningar hade många fler trott på den propagandan som nu pytsas ut i medier, via bloggar och i kommentarsfält.


Lenefors, Tianmi, Möller, Kilden & Åsman, Annarkia, CFK, Helle Klein, Törnebhom.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Om det fanns legosoldater ombord, hade Israel verkligen släppt alla fria så fort?

Israelisk militär går ut med uppgiften att det skulle ha funnits 50 legosoldater ombord på det bordade fartyget.

Enkel logik.
Om 50 legosoldater gjort motstånd mot bordningen.

1. Hade någon av den varit vid liv efteråt?

2. Hade Israel släppt och deporterat dom?

Inte en snöbolls chans i helvetet att de hade undkommit med både livet i behåll och undvikit att bli anklagade för terrorism.

Däremot blir jag mer och mer orolig för personerna ombord på fartyget Rachel Corrie, som förlorat kontakten med omvärlden sedan några timmar tillbaka.

Från Svensson.

"Alla förbindelser med det humanitära hjälpfartyget Rachel Corrie, som är på väg mot Gaza, verkar för närvarande vara brutna."

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , ,

Det är ett tungt maskineri som släppts loss för att förhärliga Israels folkrättsvidriga ingripande.

Vilka de olika personerna är spelar inte så stor roll, det är de "sanningar" de försöker fastslå som gör det intressant att läsa.

tex så används det faktum att ett av fartygen gjorde motstånd mot den illegala bordningen, som ett argument för att bordningen var "legal".

Något som är ett lika slagfärdigt, som korkat, argument eftersom aktionen skedde på internationellt vatten.
En väpnad bordning utanför sitt eget territorialvatten är illegal, hur man än vänder och vrider på sanningen för att få fram en poäng.
Men huvudsaken från propagandamaskinen är inte att få en poäng, eller ens att diskutera.
Det är att göda de extremistiska krafter som nu desperat letar efter skäl för att rättfärdiga insatsen och att begrava en konstruktiv debatt under så mycket skit som möjligt.

Det tragiska är att vissa företrädare för StG inte heller verkar ha Gazas befolknings intresse för sina ögon, utan släpper, enligt media, iväg ett antal dåliga citat som nu används i debatten.

Men jag ställer samma fråga som i mitt förra inlägg om StG.

Stöttar ni Israels militärs rätt (och rättsvidriga) att stjäla mobiltelefoner, hindra journalister från illgång till information och censurera alla nationella och lokala tidningar från att rapportera om händelsen?

Att inte protestera mot ens det, är att ge sitt tysta medgivande till en Nation som gör sitt yttersta för att spela sina fiender i händerna.
För om ni godkänner det från Israels håll, vilken rätt har ni då att protestera mot Rysslands behandling av Tjetjener och Kinas censurlagar?

DN, AB, DN2, AB2.
Svensson, Peter Andersson, Annarkia, Johan Westerholm, Röda Berget,

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

"Vapengömman" - eller normalt innehåll i en skeppsmäss.

Man blir lite full i skratt när "Vapengömman" visas upp för omvärlden.

Köksknivar, skiftnycklar och bordsben från mässhall och besättningen.....
Tyder på desperation från Israels propagandamaskin.
Visst, det finns en och annan fickkniv och slangbellorna kan med lite sträckning av begreppen kallas för vapen.

Sen har du den enda kniven som kan kallas för kniv (den ligger nere till höger, under skruvmejseln), men berätta för mig att 60-70 skadade och döda är proportionerligt.

Men i stort sett handlar det om saker som du skulle hitta i kökslådorna i vilken mäss som helst

Och du kommer fortfarande inte ifrån faktum.
Bordningen skedde på internationellt vatten och ledde till ett tiotal människors död.

Sen ställ er denna frågan, Enochson (som redigerat sitt originalinlägg kraftigt sedan åthutningen från partiledningen), Wykman och Erixon.

Stöttar ni Israels militärs lagenliga (och rättsvidriga) rätt att stjäla mobiltelefoner, hindra journalister och censurera alla nationella och lokala tidningar från att rapportera om händelsen?

Om inte, var är era protester?

Dick Erixons ordförandeskap i Gustaf Petréns skapelse "Medborgarrättsrörelesen" borde visa på viss vett och sans, men under Erixons ordförandeskap har organisationen förfallit hårt och är reducerad till ett politiskt alibi för att kunna driva igenom all möjlig skit.

Jag läser dock med glädje en av de sansade personerna i debatten, Mark Klamberg, som också skriver på Second Opinion.

DN, DN2, AB, DN3, AB2, DN4, AB3.
arar, hellström, annarkia, homo politicus, krassman,

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Irland varnar Israel för att attackera 'Rachel Corrie'


"- Låt mig göra en sak klar. Om någon av våra medborgare kommer till skada, då kommer det att få mycket svåra konsekvenser, s Cowen."

Skeppet 'Rachel Corrie' har cement, leksaker och skolmaterial i lasten.

AB, Expr, DN, SvD, SvD2, AB2, DN2.
Sagor från Livbåten, Mitt i Steget, Ipse Cognita, Martin Moberg, Essbeck, Norah4you, In your Face, Emil Broberg, Trollhare, Mark Klamberg.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

Trodde ni Wykmans uttalanden var galna? Här är en ännu värre.

Det är kristdemokratiska riksdagsledamoten Annelie Enochsson som häver ur sig något som kan sättas som exempel i lexicon bredvid uttrycket "Hellre tiga och låta folk tro att du är en idiot, än att tala och undanröja alla tvivel", något som även AFS verkar hålla med om.

I ett och samma inlägg (se länk ovan) hävdar hon att Ship to Gaza använde barn som mänskliga sköldar, att de smugglade vapen, att aktionen skedde på Israeliskt vatten, undermåliga fartyg etc etc.

Inte ens bland de mest Pro-Israeliska bloggar som brukar vara snabba ute med desinformation, kan man läsa sådant här kvalificerat skitsnack.

Jag trodde Wykman skulle bli utnämnd till denna omgångens nöt, i tät konkurrens av Dick Erixon och Munkhammar.

Men Enochsson fullkomligt krossar motståndet.

AB, Expr, DN, SvD, SvD2, AB2, DN2.
Sagor från Livbåten, Mitt i Steget, Ipse Cognita, Martin Moberg, Essbeck, Norah4you, In your Face, Emil Broberg, Trollhare, Mark Klamberg.

Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , , , , ,

Manifestation till stöd för Ship to Gaza.

Från Facebook.

Ship to Gazas frihetsflotta hotas att bordas av israelisk militär. Sent på söndagskvällen sände israeliska militären en meddelande där de uppmanade flottan att ändra kurs eller bordas och placerade sina militärfartyg bredvid flottan.

Detta är en unik händelse att en humanitär hjälpsändning bemöts med militärmakt. Nationer, politiker och medborgare över hela världen måste protestera och uppmana Israel att inte ta till militärt våld mot en fredlig flotta. Ship to Gaza vädjar efter internationell solidaritet och manifestationer utanför Israels ambassader och konsultat. I flera europeiska städer kommer det hållas manifestationer under måndagen.

Måndag 31 jan kl 18
Gustav Adolfs Torg, Malmö

Den svenska regeringen måste fördöma Israels agerande och försvara rätten att segla på internationella vatten.
Allt stöd åt Ship to Gaza!


I över ett år har arbetet med Ship tp Gaza pågått och äntligen har den svenska båten "Sofia" kastat loss från hamnen i Grekland och är nu på väg mot Gaza tillsammans med de åtta andra skeppen i "Freedom Flotilla".

Israel har hotat att stoppa denna humanitära solidaritetsinsats - med våld "om så krävs". Vi böjer oss dock inte för ockupationsmakten utan hävdar vår rätt att använda de internationella haven för bryta den olagliga och inhumana blockaden mot Gaza.

I Malmö kommer vi att ha ett infotält på Gustav Adolfs Torg från och med fredag kl 12 och dygnet runt fram till söndag kl 17. Där kommer du att kunna följa livesändningar från båten, få den senaste informationen, de kommer att vara manifestationer, tal, musik, kultur, filmvisningar osv. Vi kommer också att fortsätta den insamling som redan har resluterat i 100 ton cement till Gaza!

Se programmet som uppdateras löpande:


AB, Expr, DN, SvD.
Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

Niklas Wykman (muf) "Detta är en seger för hela Gaza" (Ang bordningen av Ship to Gaza)

Ibland blir man rent ut sagt förbannad.

I Lördags fällde Niklas Wykman denna osmakliga kommentar på Facebook

Niklas Wykman Ship to Gaza är storpolitik och krigsprovokation förklätt till välgörenhet. Tycker att det är osmakligt att utnyttja människorna på Gaza i en ideologisk kamp mot Israel. Om Gazabornas bästa vore syftet kan man ju fråga sig varför S.t.G. inte accepterat erbjudandet från Israel att frakta hela lasten direkt till människorna?"

Idag följer han upp med:

"Niklas Wykman
Det är lättande att Hamas nu inte får det besök de hade förväntat sig. Det är en seger för hela Gaza!"

Bilden är beskuren, det dryga 20-tal kommentarer som är mellan toppen och botten finns ingen anledning att ta med.

Det kommer inte att bli fler citat från Wykman nu, jag har ingen lust att ha kvar honom på min vännerlista.

Jag vet att det finns en diskussion om ifall man ska ta facebookuppdateringar med i postningar.
Jag anser att offentliga personer får räkna med att ens uttalanden är offentligt material.

Nu har Dick Erixon öppnat sin blogg för lite Bagdad-Bob retorik.

Det som är fruktansvärt i sammanhanget är att han står som ordförande för den moderata organisationen "Medborgarättsrörelsen". (Skapad av Gustaf Petrén 1974)

Jag tvivlar på att han känner till innebörden av ordet.

Nu har Wykman förstärkt sitt tidigare uttalande.

Munkhammar sållar sig till de som försvarar aktionen.

AB, Expr, DN, SvD.
Pinged at TwinglyIntressant
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om , , , ,

Tidigare inlägg
RSS 2.0