Recentele atentate de la Londra readuc in discutie, cu intensitate sporita, cateva din subiectele fierbinti ale Orientului Mijlociu (OM). Romania, fiind membra a "Coalition of the Willing" este deja implicata in OM, iar anticipata aderare la UE o face si membra europeana. Se poate spune de aceea ca romanii sunt in aceste momente londonezi, la fel ca toti cetatenii tarilor europene si SUA.
La forumul Ziua, peromaneste a pus o intrebare lui Rober Korg, personajul din spatele http://elkorg.blogspot.com. Considerand concluzia primului paragraf, OM este un subiect potrivit peromaneste. Iata intrebarea, raspunsul si comentarii:
peromaneste:
Ca americanii si-au dat cu stangu'n'dreptu, ca britanicii au lasat deliberat numai focare de conflict pe unde au cedat imperiul (cu exceptia SUA), ca teroristii sunt 'serviti', in prezent si nu numai in trecut, de argumente bazate pe ipocrizia vesticilor etc. pot toate fi adevarate intr-un context sau altul. Robert Korg, care este viziunea ta domnule despre solutii [la confruntarea Vestului cu terorismul]?
Robert Korg:
De fapt nu stiu daca britanicii au lasat deliberat acele focare de conflict in lumea araba (prin trasarea aiurea a granitelor la plecarea colonistilor) sau doar din ignoranta si indiferenta. Un subiect de cercetat.
Vizunea mea spusa foarte scurt? Este inspirata dintr-un studiu facut de studentii unui renumit colegiu militar american si publicat intr-un ziar din Washington pe data de ... atentie, 10 septembrie 2001.
Daca cineva vrea sa faca liniste in lume araba, primul pas este plasarea unei forte internationale de mentinere a pacii de 100.000 de soldati pe granita din 1967 dintre Israel si Teritoriile Ocupate. [Asta era ideea studiului.] Forta poate fi sub conducere americana, europeana sau ONU, nu este important.
Dupa instalarea acelei forte, armata israeliana se retrage complet la vatra (nu se amesteca cu soldatii internationali). Toate coloniile (settlements) construite de Israel in afara granitelor sale din 1967 se demoleaza iar colonistii sunt retrasi inauntrul tarii. Se creaza Statul Palestina format din West Bank si Gaza, cu un culoar de trecere intre ele. Palestina isi face armata proprie, graniceri si politie care sa nu fie diferite de omonimele lor din orice tara din lume -- stii ca acum politia palestiniana nu are voie sa poarte arme, deci ei ar trebui sa-i opreasca pe militanti cu mainile goale?!
Dupa crearea Statului Palestina forta internationala se retrage treptat de acolo in timp de 10 ani -- nu trebuie sa ne facem probleme privind costurile, 10 ani de pace sunt mult mai ieftini decat 2 ani de razboi in Irak.
Al doilea pas este retragerea la vatra a sutelor de mii de soldati americani care impanzesc acum lume araba, in special Arabia Saudita, Irak si Afghanistan. Nici China nici Rusia nu se vor grabi sa devina expansioniste, rusii nu sunt in stare sa-si rezolve nici macar problema cecena iar China are treaba cu Taiwanul.
Este clar ca odata cu retragerea americana vor fi unele schimbari de regim in cele 3 tari arabe ocupate acum de americani. Probabil se vor instala lideri religiosi si tarile vor fi conduse dupa legea islamica. Asta vor acele popoare si nimeni nu are dreptul sa le impuna altceva -- cu atat mai putin conceptul de "democratie" scris pe turela tancului sau pe peretele unui McDonalds.
Daca OPEC, scapata de sub cizma americana, va incerca sa faca pe nebuna la un moment dat (desi nu mai are motivul palestinian la indemana) problema se poate rezolva simplu la ONU, in cadrul NATO, G8, UE, etc Oricare din acestea este suficient de puternica pentru a pune OPEC la respect.
Statele Unite si celelalte puteri nucleare trebuie sa-si reduca treptat arsenalele nucleare, conform acordurilor semnate de deceni dar nerespectate, pana cand devin cu adevarat defensive, nu capabile sa distruga toata viata de pe Terra de cateva ori. Altfel, nimeni nu are dreptul sa opreasca Iranul sau Coreea de Nord sau alte state sa devina nucleare, exact asa cum i s-a permis Pakistanului, care nu-i deloc mai democratic ca alte state arabe, numai pentru ca este aliat strategic american.
peromaneste:
Robert, viziunea aceasta este in linie cu ceea ce "pacifistii" din SUA sustin de mai mult timp. Ultima data s-a vazut insa de la Scheuer/anonimul, fostul Director CIA--nu tocmai un "pacifist, care conditiona orice solutie in OM de rezolvarea:
- Problemei palestiniene;
- Perceptiei din lumea araba despre suportul neconditionat al SUA pentru Israel;
- Dependentei americane de petrol.
Raspunsul tau adreseaza numai punctele 1 si 3--intr-o maniera incompleta. Calific interventia ca incomplete caci: La punctul 1 nu adreseaza intentiile/interesele Israelului, iar la punctul 3 nu e foarte clara noua dialectica/echilibrul a relatiei OPEC cu lumea (vestica).
Sa revin la punctul 1: Cat de aproape/departe este propunerea ta de ceea ce Barak/Clinton i-au dat lui Arafat? Pari a sustine o intoarcere 100% la granitele de la 1967 pe cand Barak dadea putin mai putin de 100% inapoi. Nu mentionezi nimic de dreptul (sau lipsa acestuia) palestinienilor din exil, desi planul Barak/Clinton avea o proviziune (canadiana?) in acest sens. Stiam de asemenea ca Israelul prefera(u) o forta Americana si nu aveau incredere in nimic altceva. Propun planul Barak/Clinton ca etalon, caci se pare ca acolo si atunci au fost Israelul si Palestina cel mai aproape de o pace.
Ca o paranteza pe care o deschid mai ales pentru amicii de la fata locului, se aud deja voci din Israel care intretin idea unei independente a politicii / armatei / economiei israeliene de cea americana. In acest caz, toate scenariile se schimba. Intr-adevar, evolutia Israelului ca actor independent in lume poate da nastere unor (re)evolutii de genul: Israel + China vs. restul lumii.
Da-mi voie Robert sa fiu sceptic in ceea ce priveste idea ca chinezii nu s-ar grabi sa umple vidul de putere creat la dezangajarea SUA in OM. De fapt, o faci sa sune de ca si cum OM, odata lasat la voia "autodeterminarii", s-ar transforma pur si simplu intr-un cetatean mondial model. Chiar asa sa fie?
Mai departe, data fiind natura istoriei, timpul nu poate fi dat inapoi, chiar daca astfel s-ar evita catastrofe militare sau sfarsitul (tragic) al imperiilor. In alte cuvinte, nu cred in denuclearizare decat atunci cand alceva mai al naibii decat arma nucleara ii va lua locul. Spun asta nu fara ceva pesimism.
Si cum te-am intrebat de o solutie, iata si opiniile peromaneste:
Intrarea in Irak a fost o prostie (ne)calculata, dar odata intrati acolo nu vreau sa ma gandesc la costul esecului. Succesul in momentul de fata poate fi descris de o situatie in care irakienii sa:
- Schimbe petrol pentru bunuri facute in restul lumii;
- Sa-si aleaga liderii la vot;
- Sa nu incerce sa refaca granitele in OM prin mijloace nedemocratice.
Problema cea mai mare pe care o vad e urmatoarea: popoarele care se simt nedreptatite si opresate mobilizeaza resurse nebanuite pentru a lupta, pe cand popoarele care n-au nici o suparare istorica/nationala n-au un motiv pentru a lupta. In alte cuvinte, daca liderii arabi reusesc sa continue radicalizarea populatiilor lor impotriva Vestului/SUA/Israelului, cu orice pret din partea populatiei, terorismul va avea un rezervor de recruti imens. Daca cetatenii americani incep sa se indoiasca de rolul si misiunea din Irak cine o sa vrea sa mai fie acolo dintre soldatii americani? In alte cuvinte, the time is running out and so are the options.
Un amic ce tocmai s-a intors dintr-o calatorie in Europa spunea ca opinia strazii pare a se inclina spre pozitia americana odata cu atacurile din Londra.
Declaratii oficiale de la Bucuresti
Presedintele Basescu:
- Romania este la fel de expusa ca orice alta tara democratica. Suntem o democratie aproape consolidata si atata timp cat esti o democratie devii o tinta pentru terorismul orb.
- [Atentatele de la Londra reprezinta] un pret nemeritat de vieti de oameni nevinovati, pe care Europa il plateste.
- [Terorismul este] un fenomen care nu are decat un obiectiv, sa loveasca acolo unde crede ca sunt centri vitali ai democratiei lumii civilizate.
- Va trebui sa ramanem puternici, uniti, pentru ca terorismul loveste orb, oriunde in lume, oriunde poate si intotdeauna ii loveste pe cei nevinovati. Este un motiv in plus sa fim solidari intr-o Europa care, datorita evolutiei sale democratice, incepe sa fie urata de cei care nu inteleg democratia, de cei care ar vrea ca lumea sa se aseze altfel decat in reguli specifice natiunilor moderne, care vor sa evolueze libere si puternice.
- [romanii] Avem obligatia sa ramanem acolo unde suntem, alaturi de aliatii nostri si sa luptam cu toate mijloacele pe care le avem impotriva flagelului terorismului.
Premierul Tariceanu:
- Este o grea incercare pentru intreg poporul britanic si cred ca in aceste momente cea mai importanta este nevoia de a arata solidaritate in fata acestor acte barbare de terorism, in fata carora lumea civilizata, lumea democratica trebuie sa actioneze la unison si sa gaseasca cele mai potrivite atitudini pentru a contracara acest flagel care afecteaza intreaga lume.
Ministrul de externe Ungureanu:
- Si trebuie sa spunem cu totii ca esential este sa luptam impotriva terorismului si sa aparam valorile comune in care credem.
Aflam ca oficialii de la Bucuresti au aceleasi pareri rau ca noi. Ce nu aflam este ce face statul roman pentru a preveni acte teroriste pe teritoriul Romaniei si, in caz in care asa ceva s-ar intampla pe teritoriul romanesc, ce planuri de salvare exista. Poate ca preventia este de domeniul confidentialului, desi ar trebui sa fie si o componenta care sa implice populatia. Guvernantii nostri n-au nici o scuza insa la a nu pomeni nimic de planuri de salvare...
A fi parte din coalitia condusa de americani in Irak este un gest politic si moral al politicienilor romani si al romanilor in general. A nu te achita de responsabilitatile ce rezulta din asemenea gest pe plan intern este clar semnul inconstientei politice si cetatenesti.
Parerile tale care sunt cetitoriule? Fie la sectiunea de comentarii, fie la forumul Yahoo peromaneste, te invit sa-ti spui parerea sau pur si simplu sa intrebi. Nu cred ca cineva la nivelul nostru, al cetateanului, are solutia, insa cred foarte mult in dialogul civic prin care putem informa si conditiona deciziile politicienilor nostri.
Da click aici ca sa vezi totul!
17 comentarii:
peromaneste a scris:
> Da-mi voie Robert sa fiu sceptic in ceea ce priveste idea ca chinezii
> nu s-ar grabi sa umple spatiul de putere lasat liber de americani in
> OM.
Multi vad asta, dar putini o spun.
> N-am fost de acord cu intrarea in Irak
Atunci inseamna ca nu ai o privire clara asupra ce se intampla, desi mai sus pareai ca ai inteles.
progitmo,
Cat timp Saddam era acolo nu aveai un vid de putere. Acum, daca SUA se retrage timpuriu, vei avea unul cu siguranta.
Altfel, dupa logica pe care o folosesti, esti unul dintre cei care confunda cauza cu efectul. Daca luam in considerare si pseudonimul sub care scrii, dupa tot ce stim despre Guantanamo, esti ceea ce se numeste "useful idiot".
Vrei sa devii membru al grupului de discutii peromaneste la Yahoo? Trimite email la peromaneste@gmail.com si-ti vom trimite invitatie!
Pt. Robert Korg
Ce se intimpla tovarase ???? Ai inebunit total ????
Ce vrei sa rezolvi un conflict de 100 de ani in 10 ani ????
Pai ce mai face "patriotul " Bush, sau plingaciosul de Blair?????
Si in plus mai iei piinea de la gura unui traktorist, sau mosului care nu vor avea cu ce sa se mai laude !!!!
Da' cu fofirllica nu se poate ??? Bagam un fitil in Irak, urmata de o armata. Intre doua bombardamente mai tragem o dusca de petrol (interzis de a se publica in presa ).
Mai dam o punguta de bani unor "patrioti " Irakieni (ca mujahedinii au termenul de folosire expirat), ne facem ca nu vedem cum noul guvern Irakian "instaleaza " democratia aprobata la White House.
Intre timp mai bombardam citiva civili in Afganistan (pretizie maica si "inteligenta" americana) ca nu cumva sa se alieze cu teroristii ( sau poate ca tocmai sa-i sustina ). Ca doar nu vrei sa se inchida armata americana din lipsa de inamici ????????
Cit de retragerea Israelului, nu cumva esti antisemit ???? Da de retragere prin anexare ai auzit ??? Nu ??? Tehnica e simpla, faci un pas inapoi, dar inainte de a il face te postezi cu fata spre Israel !!!!!
Se pare ca reincepe cruciada
Pentru cine are ochi sa vada si minte sa judece .... e tot mai clar pe zi ce trece ca lumea se pregateste de un razboi religios.
Vezi de ce nu e buna religia la nimic! Pardon ... eu vreau sa zic ca nu e buna pentru oamenii simplii ....pentru ca pentru preoti de exemplu ea este chiar mai importanta ca aerul... unul din cele trei elemente vitale ...apa aerul si fraierul.
cat timp serviciul spiritual se face pe bani ,,,, si nu din dragoste pentru aproape si nici din dorinta de a mijloci intre Cel de sus si noi oamenii .... ci in mod evident exclusiv pentru strangerea de ochi ai dracului" nu cred ca trebuie creditata cu prea multa incredere aceasta institutie ...biserica care vedem ca zice una si face alta.
Daca din partea crestinilor fanatizati de prin State pericolul nu e asa de mare pentru distrugerea civilizatiei ... din partea musulmanilor care din cauza ca sunt mai ramasi in urma mental si mai fanatici ... pericolul e mult mai mare.
Eu cred ca decat sa se ajunga la genul asta de lupta murdara dusa pe planul marsav al uciderii prin terorism de oameni nevinovati ... cred ca ar tzrebui swa se cearna graul de neghina si sa se recunoasca caracterul crestin al culturii europene si astfel sa fie primiti in europa doar acei arabi care consimt sa renunte la religia musulmana si sa treca la crestinism... iar daca nici atunci nu se linistesc lucrurile sa se treaca la expulzarea satanistilor islamici si instituirea unei cortine de fier intre cele doua civilizatii. Cu cat se vor rezolva mai rapid lucrurile in aceasta directie cu atat vor fi mai mici numarul celor care trebuie sa plateasca cu viata lor fanatismul altora.
Re: Se pare ca reincepe cruciada
Partea cu reguli mai stricte ale imigratiei si expulzari e OK. Si partea cu crestinismul. Dar vezi tu, propunerea iti va fi respinsa, si ti se va spune ca "nu vom admite sa ni se schimbe modul de viata. Trebuie sa-l schimbam noi pe al lor."
Iar modului de viata in cauza i-a fost dat intentionat un caracter multicultural prin incurajarea imigratiei, si secular prin eliminarea treptata a religiei. Elita nu vrea sa schimbe lucrul acesta, ci sa-l impuna si "inapoiatilor" care nu-l accepta in Orient.
E ceea ce se numeste globalizare... Rezistenta inapoiatilor si spin-ul dat de mass-media trebuie sa provoace o reactie razboinica a populatiei occidentale, care sa se ralieze cu convingere luptei globalizarii, si sa lase deoparte orice judecati de valoare asupra ei. In principiu citeste postarile Traktoristului si vei intelege pozitia globalistilor.
Partea cu crestinii fundamentalisti din state e falsa. Ei deja sunt suporterii actiunilor in Orient. Au mintile ametite cu tribulations, rapture, suport neconditionat pt. Israel etc. Deci ei sprijina "estalishmentul". Si cred ca provocand crize militare in Orient vor grabi intoarcerea lui Mesia. Niste oameni bolnavi care nu au nimic de a face cu crestinismul adevarat. Poate cu un nou tip de crestinism "new age" axat mai mult pe socoteli stupide si profetii.
p.s. Si da, ni se va spune din ce in ce mai mult de acum in colo ca religia este de vina, si ca trebuie sa renuntam la religie. Oare de ce nu e surprinzator?
Secretul convorbirilor telefonice din Europa, victimă colaterală a atentatelor
Toate convorbirile telefonice din Europa ar trebui înregistrate şi arhivate, ca măsură de prevenire a terorismului, consideră ministrul britanic de interne, Charles Clarke, potrivit săptămânalului “Sunday Express”. Publicaţia a intrat în posesia propunerilor pe care Clarke ar urma să le facă, miercuri, omologilor săi din Uniunea Europeană în privinţa eficientizării luptei antiteroriste. Cea mai radicală măsură vizează arhivarea tuturor convorbirilor telefonice şi a mesajelor electronice efectuate pe teritoriul Europei şi păstrarea înregistrărilor între 6 şi 12 luni. Arhivarea nu ar fi automat sinonimă cu “ascultarea” convorbirilor, conţinutul mesajelor urmând să fie dezvăluit, la nevoie, doar în cursul unor eventuale anchete privind actele de terorism. Confidenţialitatea datelor înregistrate ar fi garantată, iar ele ar fi corelate cu o bază de date europeană privind armele şi substanţele explozive furate, conturile utilizate de persoane suspecte de finaţaterea teroriştilor şi actele false reţinute de poliţişti pe continent. Clarke ar urma să-şi prezinte oficial aceste propuneri la Bruxelles, în faţa tuturor celor 25 de miniştri de interne ai UE, convocaţi la propunerea ministrului spaniol. Pe teritoriul Marii Britanii, unde încă se dă o bătălie politică pentru introducerea cărţilor de identitate cu date biometrice, Clarke ar dori să înregistreze electronic chipul fiecărei persoane care intră şi părăseşte ţara şi să înfiinţeze o poliţie de frontieră propriu-zisă, precum în alte ţări europene, şi un minister al securităţii interne, precum în SUA.
SUA nu se retrage din regiune
Chiar daca va retrage ceva soldati din Iraq America nu-si permite sa se retraga din regiune. Prezenta americana va fi acolo cel putin cat a fost in Germania, unde inca nu a disparut.
Afara de tinerea sub observatie a focarelor islamiste din regiune, americanii trebuie sa stea si in coasta rusilor si chinezilor. Cu alte cuvinte, soldatii americanii in principiu nu se intorc acasa decat in promisiuni electorale nerealiste.
progitmo,
La un cost de $5 miliarde USD pe luna, scaderea numarului de recruti in armata SUA la nivele istorice, reorientarea opiniei publice americane ma tem ca ceea ce spui nu e decat o parere.
peromaneste wrote:
> romanii sunt in aceste momente londonezi
Corect. Cand astia le'au tras'o americanilor la ei acasa acu' cativa
ani, mi'am zis: "Nasol, dar administratia lor a cautat'o cu lumanarea".
Dupa aceea, eram adesea stanjenit de politetea si amabilitatea
exagerata cu care ma tratau araghi de pe aici, parca cersindu'si
dreptul ca eu sa'i tratez ca fiintze umane. Da, stiu, Londra era
amenintzata tot de ani de zile. Dar acum, ca chiar mi'au futut Londra
pe bune (chiar daca sora'mea, medic pneumolog, deja si'a incheiat
contractul de 18 luni cu EU si nu mai e de nimerit ca tzinta prin Isle
of Dogs), ii fut si eu pe toti araghii pe unde pot. Oameni buni, daca
nu'i futem acum oriunde, ne fut ei pe toti la noi acasa. Copiii nostri
au sansa unei dezvoltari superbe fiindca tzarile noastre nu au mai
stiut de 60 ani ce e acela razboi mondial. Parintii nostri au stiut pe
al doilea, poate chiar si pe primul. Treziti'va, va rog, acesta e cel
de'al treilea razboi mondial si asa se poarta, in forma pe care o
traim, cat om mai trai. Exact cum tu, eu, el, am da din agoniseala
noastra sa ne ajutam tzara de bastina sa fie mai bine acolo, asa o fac
si ei in felul lor. Storc banii vestului la vest acasa si cu tot cu
banii aia fut ei vestul tot la vest acasa.
Si ce bani! Parca au imprumutat proverb de la eternii lor rivali: "Nu
mai munci atata, altfel nu mai ai timp sa faci bani!" (de fapt poate e
vechi dinainte de Christos in partile alea...). Asa nu se mai poate,
oameni buni. Oriunde aveti un vecin arab, futeti'l de sa'i sune apa in
cap sa nu se mai scoale de jos sa'i arda de din astea. Eu, un nimeni,
chem la cruciada impotriva lor. Yet in the darkness of my mind,
Damascus isn't far behind. Arabs and bombs, boy, it's too much for me!
Iar Marea Britanie sa fie mai atenta pe cine primeste, daca noi n'am
fost de ea!
Dupa mineeeeee, voinicii mei!
Dupa parerea mea, dupa mine, Potopul...
Eduard Antoniu
Oakville, Ontario
--
http://www.geocities.com/edi_60
Cauza islamica si globalizarea
Globalizarea ... da se pare ca are dreptate Efect ... astea pot fi consecinte ale globalizarii dar consecinte secundare caci globalizarea a inceput poate odata cu Columb si Magellan, ca si consecinta a globalizarii vedem ca mai in toate statele asiatice se traieste in mare masura cam dupa model european, acum dupa gloalizarea culturala care a inceput de mult se pare ca nici cea economica nu poate fi oprita. Simplu de tot se pare ca globalizarea este ca un parazit care se extinde odata cu extinderea democratiei mai ales din cauza ca toata lumea viseaza buna stare, viata moderna, locuinte luminoase, abundenta de produse alimentare si tehnice, computere, masini frumoase, moda intr-un cuvant bunastare si societate de consum si acestea nu se pot face prin pastrarea vechilor traditii de viata ci tot prin modernizare deci intre aceste doua exista un conflict vital.
Intre civilizatia musulmana si globalizare nu este o contradictie aparte pentru ca si aici aceeasi presiune interna exercitata de
modernizare le impune o schimbare cu care ei nu pot fi de acord.
Dar nici globalizarea nu poate fi oprita caci e o consecinta fireasca a progresului tehnico- stintific.
Societatea lor bazata pe valorile incluse in Coranul lor este pusa in pericol de modernizarea vietii si emancipare.
Simtindu-se deja bine depasiti pe absolut toate planurile si vazand ca pierderea "de teren" este inevitabila ei vad lucrurile ca fiind deja foarte grave. Pericolul e cu atat mai greu de suportat cu cat el vine dinspre crestini adica dinspre o societate in care ei vad ca exista o religie atat denaiva ca se strica de ras citind Biblia. (fara glume am constat pe pielea mea in spe ocazi acest lucru).
Ei considera ca religia crestina este de inspiratie satanica iar tehnologiile moderne care le ameninta status quo-ul ei le vad ca fiind arma satanei. In plus ei vad ca odata cu democratizarea globalizare acestea se impun in toata lumea.
Asa se explica ura si reticenta impotriva instalarii democratie in Irak.
Asa ca nu trebuie sa ne mire ca in Indonezia Bin Laden e predat la scoli ca erou universal si din Palestina, Libia, Iran si pana-n Turcia crestinii sunt prezentati prin propaganda religioasa ca o sursa de pericol care trebuie distrusa.
Si iata ca si in Londra dupa Madrid si SUA avem de a face cu lupta lor josnica, miseleasca de distugere a crestinatatii.
Deci nu e vorba de ce zici tu si anume ca elitelor care le place sa vada plimbandu-se pe strada o parada de multi culti, ci mai degraba multicultualitatea este o consecinta a democratiei care la randul ei este produsul de export al tarilor crestine dezvoltate chiar si la ei acasa.
Iata ca putem considera ca aceste atentatele teroriste de acum sunt numai aburii care vin dinspre bucataria islamului unde ni se pregateste o portie de papara istorica. Mai deunazi un satanist islamic de pe aici Kaplan in De care a proclamat califatul din Köln a afirmat ca civilizatia crestina trebuie rasa de pe suprafata pamantului iar cea islamica trebuie generalizata.(noroc ca a fost expulzat)
Deci indiferent de ce parere aveti ... de pericolul arab nu puteti scapa pentru ca insasi valorile crestinismului care se bazeaza tocmai pe democratie si bunastare este o amenintare pentru ei.
oare nu este inca clar ?
Re: Cauza islamica si globalizarea
Reality check:
-- tarile "crestine" nu mai sunt demult crestine; sunt SECULARE. Adica se legifereaza relatiile gay, apoi gay marriage, avorturile, etc. Multe lucruri respinse de crestinism.
Unde este crestinismul domnule? In istorie poate, dar nici rolul sau in istoria lor nu mai vor tarile "crestine" sa-l mentioneze, vezi absenta acestei mentiuni in Constitutie si discutiile generate...
A, pardon, mai e crestinism. In titulatura partidelor crestin-democrate (dar care tind sa renunte la "crestin" si sa adopte termenul "popular").
In rest mai supravietuieste modest prin bisericutele de cartier vizitate de niste babute si in zona rurala. (tocmai unde nu coabiteaza cu bunastarea cum afirmati dumneavoastra)
-- valorile democratiei nu se bazeaza pe crestinism. Crestinismul se opune multor lucruri admise de principiile democratice.
-- in Coran este mentionata Biblia, oamenii "cartii" si profetii care sunt prezenti si in Biblie; in Coran este mentionata si intoarcerea lui Isus/Isa, pe care toti musulmanii o asteapta, ca si crestinii.
Musulmanii nu se strica de ras citind Biblia. Critica crestinismul doar pentru ca ei considera ca a deviat spre adularea lui Isus, insa in nici un caz nu cred ca crestinismul este o religie inspirata de Satana, sau ca nu are inspiratie divina. Dar aceste critici nu au nimic de a face cu atentatele, care au cereri/mesaje politice legate de prezenta armata in regiune.
Oricum, in mesajul dumneavoastra lipseste cu desavarsire iudaismul. Eu am vazut evrei care se strica de ras citind Biblia (Noul Testament mai exact) si care nu cred in misiunea profetica a lui Isus.
Musulmanii se vor opune democratizarii fortate din cateva motive:
-- pentru ca percep democratia ca pe un sistem care introduce homosexualitatea, pornografia si promiscuitatea, si marginalizeaza religia (introduce secularismul)
-- pentru ca democratia introdusa fortat nu va fi niciodata veritabila, pentru ca daca ar fi permisa veritabil, va oglindi tocmai respingerea valorilor ei auxiliare prin alegerea unor regimuri religioase;
-- pentru ca nu accepta ocupatia si nu ii recunosc legitimitatea
Arabii vor fi intotdeauna acolo, nu stiu ce rost are sa-mi fac probleme de pericolul arab. Cand au venit pe meleagurile noastre am facut ce trebuia. Am rezistat. Asta fac si ei acum in Irak si Afganistan.
Iar in privinta atentatorilor care ataca civili in Vest, ei o fac din dorinta de razbunare si din aceeasi boala "mesianica" pe care o au si fundamentalistii crestini care il sustin pe Bush. Ambele parti fundamentaliste cred ca daca faciliteaza un razboi intracivilizational/religios in Orient, vor grabi sosirea lui Mesia. Astia sunt diferiti si de crestinii adevarati si de musulmanii din rezistenta din Irak.
Si de fapt astia sunt capii rautatilor. Si daca mai continua cu profetiile lor, se poate sa le si iasa socoteala...
15 November 2001
'The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other'
by Sabine Reul and Thomas Deichmann
The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek has gained something of a cult following for his many writings - including The Ticklish Subject, a playful critique of the intellectual assault upon human subjectivity (1).
At the prestigious Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2001, he talked to Sabine Reul and Thomas Deichmann about subjectivity, multiculturalism, sex and unfreedom after 11 September.
Has 11 September thrown new light on your diagnosis of what is happening to the world?
Slavoj Žižek: One of the endlessly repeated phrases we heard in recent weeks is that nothing will be the same after 11 September. I wonder if there really is such a substantial change. Certainly, there is change at the level of perception or publicity, but I don't think we can yet speak of some fundamental break. Existing attitudes and fears were confirmed, and what the media were telling us about terrorism has now really happened.
In my work, I place strong emphasis on what is usually referred to as the virtualisation or digitalisation of our environment. We know that 60 percent of the people on this Earth have not even made a phone call in their life. But still, 30 percent of us live in a digitalised universe that is artificially constructed, manipulated and no longer some natural or traditional one. At all levels of our life we seem to live more and more with the thing deprived of its substance. You get beer without alcohol, meat without fat, coffee without caffeine...and even virtual sex without sex.
Virtual reality to me is the climax of this process: you now get reality without reality...or a totally regulated reality. But there is another side to this. Throughout the entire twentieth century, I see a counter-tendency, for which my good philosopher friend Alain Badiou invented a nice name: 'La passion du réel', the passion of the real. That is to say, precisely because the universe in which we live is somehow a universe of dead conventions and artificiality, the only authentic real experience must be some extremely violent, shattering experience. And this we experience as a sense that now we are back in real life.
Do you think that is what we are seeing now?
Slavoj Žižek: I think this may be what defined the twentieth century, which really began with the First World War. We all remember the war reports by Ernst Jünger, in which he praises this eye-to-eye combat experience as the authentic one. Or at the level of sex, the archetypal film of the twentieth century would be Nagisa Oshima's Ai No Corrida (In The Realm Of The Senses), where the idea again is that you become truly radical, and go to the end in a sexual encounter, when you practically torture each other to death. There must be extreme violence for that encounter to be authentic.
Another emblematic figure in this sense to me is the so-called 'cutter'- a widespread pathological phenomenon in the USA. There are two million of them, mostly women, but also men, who cut themselves with razors. Why? It has nothing to do with masochism or suicide. It's simply that they don't feel real as persons and the idea is: it's only through this pain and when you feel warm blood that you feel reconnected again. So I think that this tension is the background against which one should appreciate the effect of the act.
Does that relate to your observations about the demise of subjectivity in The Ticklish Subject? You say the problem is what you call 'foreclosure'- that the real or the articulation of the subject is foreclosed by the way society has evolved in recent years.
Slavoj Žižek: The starting point of my book on the subject is that almost all philosophical orientations today, even if they strongly oppose each other, agree on some kind of basic anti-subjectivist stance. For example, Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida would both agree that the Cartesian subject had to be deconstructed, or, in the case of Habermas, embedded in a larger inter-subjective dialectics. Cognitivists, Hegelians - everybody is in agreement here.
I am tempted to say that we must return to the subject - though not a purely rational Cartesian one. My idea is that the subject is inherently political, in the sense that 'subject', to me, denotes a piece of freedom - where you are no longer rooted in some firm substance, you are in an open situation. Today we can no longer simply apply old rules. We are engaged in paradoxes, which offer no immediate way out. In this sense, subjectivity is political.
But this kind of political subjectivity seems to have disappeared. In your books you speak of a post-political world.
Slavoj Žižek: When I say we live in a post-political world, I refer to a wrong ideological impression. We don't really live in such a world, but the existing universe presents itself as post-political in the sense that there is some kind of a basic social pact that elementary social decisions are no longer discussed as political decisions. They are turned into simple decisions of gesture and of administration. And the remaining conflicts are mostly conflicts about different cultures. We have the present form of global capitalism plus some kind of tolerant democracy as the ultimate form of that idea. And, paradoxically, only very few are ready to question this world.
So, what's wrong with that?
Slavoj Žižek: This post-political world still seems to retain the tension between what we usually refer to as tolerant liberalism versus multiculturalism. But for me - though I never liked Friedrich Nietzsche - if there is a definition that really fits, it is Nietzsche's old opposition between active and passive nihilism. Active nihilism, in the sense of wanting nothing itself, is this active self-destruction which would be precisely the passion of the real - the idea that, in order to live fully and authentically, you must engage in self-destruction. On the other hand, there is passive nihilism, what Nietzsche called 'The last man' - just living a stupid, self-satisfied life without great passions.
The problem with a post-political universe is that we have these two sides which are engaged in kind of mortal dialectics. My idea is that, to break out of this vicious cycle, subjectivity must be reinvented.
You also say that the elites in our Western world are losing their nerve. They want to throw out all old concepts like humanism or subjectivity. Against that, you say it is important to look at what there is in the old that may be worth retaining.
Slavoj Žižek: Of course, I am not against the new. I am, indeed, almost tempted to repeat Virginia Woolf. I think it was in 1914 when she said it was as though eternal human nature had changed. To be a man no longer means the same thing. One should not, for example, underestimate the inter-subjective social impact of cyberspace. What we are witnessing today is a radical redefinition of what it means to be a human being.
Take strange phenomena, like what we see on the internet. There are so-called 'cam' websites where people expose to an anonymous public their innermost secrets down to the most vulgar level. You have websites today - even I, with all my decadent tastes, was shocked to learn this - where people put a video-camera in their toilets, so you can observe them defecating. This a totally new constellation. It is not private, but also it is also not public. It is not the old exhibitionist gesture.
Be that as it may, something radical is happening. Now, a number of new terms are proposed to us to describe that. The one most commonly used is paradigm shift, denoting that we live in an epoch of shifting paradigm. So New Age people tell us that we no longer have a Cartesian, mechanistic individualism, but a new universal mind. In sociology, the theorists of second modernity say similar things. And psychoanalytical theorists tell us that we no longer have the Oedipus complex, but live in an era of universalised perversion.
My point is not that we should stick to the old. But these answers are wrong and do not really register the break that is taking place. If we measure what is happening now by the standard of the old, we can grasp the abyss of the new that is emerging.
Here I would refer to Blaise Pascal. Pascal's problem was also confrontation with modernity and modern science. His difficulty was that he wanted to remain an old, orthodox Christian in this new, modern age. It is interesting that his results were much more radical and interesting for us today than the results of superficial English liberal philosophers, who simply accepted modernity.
You see the same thing in cinema history, if we look at the impact of sound. Okay, 'what's the problem?', you might say. By adding the sound to the image we simply get a more realistic rendering of reality. But that is not at all true. Interestingly enough, the movie directors who were most sensitive to what the introduction of sound really meant were generally conservatives, those who looked at it with scepticism, like Charlie Chaplin (up to a point), and Fritz Lang. Fritz Lang's Das Testament des Dr Mabuse, in a wonderful way, rendered this spectral ghost-like dimension of the voice, realising that voice never simply belongs to the body. This is just another example of how a conservative, as if he were afraid of the new medium, has a much better grasp of its uncanny radical potentials.
The same applies today. Some people simply say: 'What's the problem? Let's throw ourselves into the digital world, into the internet, or whatever….' They really miss what is going on here.
So why do people want to declare a new epoch every five minutes?
Slavoj Žižek: It is precisely a desperate attempt to avoid the trauma of the new. It is a deeply conservative gesture. The true conservatives today are the people of new paradigms. They try desperately to avoid confronting what is really changing.
Let me return to my example. In Charlie Chaplin's film The Great Dictator, he satirises Hitler as Hinkel. The voice is perceived as something obscene. There is a wonderful scene where Hinkel gives a big speech and speaks totally meaningless, obscene words. Only from time to time you recognise some everyday vulgar German word like 'Wienerschnitzel' or 'Kartoffelstrudel'. And this was an ingenious insight; how voice is like a kind of a spectral ghost. All this became apparent to those conservatives who were sensitive for the break of the new.
In fact, all big breaks were done in such a way. Nietzsche was in this sense a conservative, and, indeed, I am ready to claim that Marx was a conservative in this sense, too. Marx always emphasised that we can learn more from intelligent conservatives than from simple liberals. Today, more than ever, we should stick to this attitude. When you are surprised and shocked, you don't simply accept it. You should not say: 'Okay, fine, let's play digital games.' We should not forget the ability to be properly surprised. I think, the most dangerous thing today is just to flow with things.
Then let's return to some of the things that have been surprising us. In a recent article, you made the point that the terrorists mirror our civilisation. They are not out there, but mirror our own Western world. Can you elaborate on that some more?
Slavoj Žižek: This, of course, is my answer to this popular thesis by Samuel P Huntington and others that there is a so-called clash of civilisations. I don't buy this thesis, for a number of reasons.
Today's racism is precisely this racism of cultural difference. It no longer says: 'I am more than you.' It says: 'I want my culture, you can have yours.' Today, every right-winger says just that. These people can be very postmodern. They acknowledge that there is no natural tradition, that every culture is artificially constructed. In France, for example, you have a neo-fascist right that refers to the deconstructionists, saying: 'Yes, the lesson of deconstructionism against universalism is that there are only particular identities. So, if blacks can have their culture, why should we not have ours?'
We should also consider the first reaction of the American 'moral majority', specifically Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to the 11 September attacks. Pat Robertson is a bit eccentric, but Jerry Falwell is a mainstream figure, who endorsed Reagan and is part of the mainstream, not an eccentric freak. Now, their reaction was the same as the Arabs', though he did retract a couple of days later. Falwell said the World Trade Centre bombings were a sign that God no longer protects the USA, because the USA had chosen a path of evil, homosexuality and promiscuity.
According to the FBI, there are now at least two million so-called radical right-wingers in the USA. Some are quite violent, killing abortion doctors, not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing. To me, this shows that the same anti-liberal, violent attitude also grows in our own civilisation. I see that as proof that this terrorism is an aspect of our time. We cannot link it to a particular civilisation.
Regarding Islam, we should look at history. In fact, I think it is very interesting in this regard to look at ex-Yugoslavia. Why was Sarajevo and Bosnia the place of violent conflict? Because it was ethnically the most mixed republic of ex-Yugoslavia. Why? Because it was Muslim-dominated, and historically they were definitely the most tolerant. We Slovenes, on the other hand, and the Croats, both Catholics, threw them out several hundred years ago.
This proves that there is nothing inherently intolerant about Islam. We must rather ask why this terrorist aspect of Islam arises now. The tension between tolerance and fundamentalist violence is within a civilisation.
Take another example: on CNN we saw President Bush present a letter of a seven-year-old girl whose father is a pilot and now around Afghanistan. In the letter she said that she loves her father, but if her country needs his death, she is ready to give her father for her country. President Bush described this as American patriotism. Now, do a simple mental experiment - imagine the same event with an Afghan girl saying that. We would immediately say: 'What cynicism, what fundamentalism, what manipulation of small children.' So there is already something in our perception. But what shocks us in others we ourselves also do in a way.
So multiculturalism and fundamentalism could be two sides of the same coin?
Slavoj Žižek: There is nothing to be said against tolerance. But when you buy this multiculturalist tolerance, you buy many other things with it. Isn't it symptomatic that multiculturalism exploded at the very historic moment when the last traces of working-class politics disappeared from political space? For many former leftists, this multiculturalism is a kind of ersatz working-class politics. We don't even know whether the working class still exists, so let's talk about exploitation of others.
There may be nothing wrong with that as such. But there is a danger that issues of economic exploitation are converted into problems of cultural tolerance. And then you have only to make one step further, that of Julia Kristeva in her essay 'Etrangers à nous mêmes', and say we cannot tolerate others because we cannot tolerate otherness in ourselves. Here we have a pure pseudo-psychoanalytic cultural reductionism.
Isn't it sad and tragic that the only relatively strong - not fringe - political movement that still directly addresses the working class is made up of right-wing populists? They are the only ones. Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, for example. I was shocked when I saw him three years ago at a congress of the Front National. He brought a black Frenchman, an Algerian and a Jew on the podium, embraced them and said: 'They are no less French than I am. Only the international cosmopolitan companies who neglect French patriotic interests are my enemy.' So the price is that only right-wingers still talk about economic exploitation.
The second thing I find wrong with this multiculturalist tolerance is that it is often hypocritical in the sense that the other whom they tolerate is already a reduced other. The other is okay in so far as this other is only a question of food, of culture, of dances. What about clitoridectomy? What about my friends who say: 'We must respect Hindus.' Okay, but what about one of the old Hindu customs which, as we know, is that when a husband dies, the wife is burned. Now, do we respect that? Problems arise here.
An even more important problem is that this notion of tolerance effectively masks its opposite: intolerance. It is a recurring theme in all my books that, from this liberal perspective, the basic perception of another human being is always as something that may in some way hurt you.
Are you referring to what we call victim culture?
Slavoj Žižek: The discourse of victimisation is almost the predominant discourse today. You can be a victim of the environment, of smoking, of sexual harassment. I find this reduction of the subject to a victim sad. In what sense? There is an extremely narcissistic notion of personality here. And, indeed, an intolerant one, insofar as what it means is that we can no longer tolerate violent encounters with others - and these encounters are always violent.
Let me briefly address sexual harassment for a moment. Of course I am opposed to it, but let's be frank. Say I am passionately attached, in love, or whatever, to another human being and I declare my love, my passion for him or her. There is always something shocking, violent in it. This may sound like a joke, but it isn't - you cannot do the game of erotic seduction in politically correct terms. There is a moment of violence, when you say: 'I love you, I want you.' In no way can you bypass this violent aspect. So I even think that the fear of sexual harassment in a way includes this aspect, a fear of a too violent, too open encounter with another human being.
Another thing that bothers me about this multiculturalism is when people ask me: 'How can you be sure that you are not a racist?' My answer is that there is only one way. If I can exchange insults, brutal jokes, dirty jokes, with a member of a different race and we both know it's not meant in a racist way. If, on the other hand, we play this politically correct game - 'Oh, I respect you, how interesting your customs are' - this is inverted racism, and it is disgusting.
In the Yugoslav army where we were all of mixed nationalities, how did I become friends with Albanians? When we started to exchange obscenities, sexual innuendo, jokes. This is why this politically correct respect is just, as Freud put it, 'zielgehemmt'. You still have the aggression towards the other.
For me there is one measure of true love: you can insult the other. Like in that horrible German comedy film from 1943 where Marika Röck treats her fiancé very brutally. This fiancé is a rich, important person, so her father asks her why are you treating him like that. And she gives the right answer. She says: 'But I love him, and since I love him, I can do with him whatever I want.' That's the truth of it. If there is true love, you can say horrible things and anything goes.
When multiculturalists tell you to respect the others, I always have this uncanny association that this is dangerously close to how we treat our children: the idea that we should respect them, even when we know that what they believe is not true. We should not destroy their illusions. No, I think that others deserve better - not to be treated like children.
In your book on the subject you talk of a 'true universalism' as an opposite of this false sense of global harmony. What do you mean by that?
Slavoj Žižek: Here I need to ask myself a simple Habermasian question: how can we ground universality in our experience? Naturally, I don't accept this postmodern game that each of us inhabits his or her particular universe. I believe there is universality. But I don't believe in some a priori universality of fundamental rules or universal notions. The only true universality we have access to is political universality. Which is not solidarity in some abstract idealist sense, but solidarity in struggle.
If we are engaged in the same struggle, if we discover that - and this for me is the authentic moment of solidarity - being feminists and ecologists, or feminists and workers, we all of a sudden have this insight: 'My God, but our struggle is ultimately the same!' This political universality would be the only authentic universality. And this, of course, is what is missing today, because politics today is increasingly a politics of merely negotiating compromises between different positions.
The post-political subverts the freedom that has been talked about so much in recent weeks. Is that what you are saying?
Slavoj Žižek: I do claim that what is sold to us today as freedom is something from which this more radical dimension of freedom and democracy has been removed - in other words, the belief that basic decisions about social development are discussed or brought about involving as many as possible, a majority. In this sense, we do not have an actual experience of freedom today. Our freedoms are increasingly reduced to the freedom to choose your lifestyle. You can even choose your ethnic identity up to a point.
But this new world of freedom described by people like Ulrich Beck, who say everything is a matter of reflective negotiation, of choice, can include new unfreedom. My favourite example is this, and here we have ideology at its purest: we know that it is very difficult today in more and more professional domains to get a long-term job. Academics or journalists, for example, now often live on a two- or three-year contract, that you then have to renegotiate. Of course, most of us experience this as something traumatising, shocking, where you can never be sure. But then, along comes the postmodern ideologist: 'Oh, but this is just a new freedom, you can reinvent yourself every two years!'
The problem for me is how unfreedom is hidden, concealed in precisely what is presented to us as new freedoms. I think that the explosion of these new freedoms, which fall under the domain of what Michel Foucault called 'care of the self', involves greater social unfreedom.
Twenty or 30 years ago there was still discussion as to whether the future would be fascist, socialist, communist or capitalist. Today, nobody even discusses this. These fundamental social choices are simply no longer perceived as a matter to decide. A certain domain of radical social questions has simply been depoliticised.
I find it very sad that, precisely in an era in which tremendous changes are taking place and, indeed entire social coordinates are transformed, we don't experience this as something about which we decided freely.
So, let's return to the aftermath of 11 September. We now experience a strange kind of war that we are told will not end for a long time. What do you think of this turn of events?
Slavoj Žižek: I don't quite agree with those who claim that this World Trade Centre explosion was the start of the first war of the twenty-first century. I think it was a war of the twentieth century, in the sense that it was still a singular, spectacular event. The new wars would be precisely as you mentioned - it will not even be clear whether it is a war or not. Somehow life will go on and we will learn that we are at war, as we are now.
What worries me is how many Americans perceived these bombings as something that made them into innocents: as if to say, until now, we had problems, Vietnam, and so on. Now we are victims, and this somehow justifies us in fully identifying with American patriotism.
That's a risky gesture. The big choice for Americans is whether they retreat into this patriotism - or, as my friend Ariel Dorfman wrote recently: 'America has the chance to become a member of the community of nations. America always behaves as though it were special. It should use this attack as an opportunity to admit that it is not special, but simply and truly part of this world.' That's the big choice.
There is something so disturbingly tragic in this idea of the wealthiest country in the world bombing one of the poorest countries. It reminds me of the well-known joke about the idiot who loses a key in the dark and looks for it beneath the light. When asked why, he says: 'I know I lost it over there, but it's easier to look for it here.'
But at the same time I must confess that the left also deeply disappointed me. Falling back into this safe pacifist attitude - violence never stops violence, give peace a chance - is abstract and doesn't work here. First, because this is not a universal rule. I always ask my leftist friends who repeat that mantra: What would you have said in 1941 with Hitler. Would you also say: 'We shouldn't resist, because violence never helps?' It is simply a fact that at some point you have to fight. You have to return violence with violence. The problem is not that for me, but that this war can never be a solution.
It is also false and misleading to perceive these bombings as some kind of third world working-class response to American imperialism. In that case, the American fundamentalists we already discussed, are also a working-class response, which they clearly are not. We face a challenge to rethink our coordinates and I hope that this will be a good result of this tragic event. That we will not just use it to do more of the same but to think about what is really changing in our world.
Dr Slavoj Žižek is professor of philosophy at University Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is currently a member of the Directors' Board at Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut in Essen, Germany.
How Widespread is Terrorism in Europe?
By Andreas Ulrich, Holger Stark, Cordula Meyer and Dominik Cziesche
The London bombings prove one thing: investigators still have not infiltrated the world of radical Islam in Europe. Hampering their efforts are increasingly sophisticated cells that move undetected across borders and individuals who lead seemingly inocuous lives --until they attack. Those attacks can come at any time, and it seems, can happen anywhere.
It was a perfidious plan, filled with dark, hateful tirades. And, it was also planned down to the last detail. Part of it involved blowing up trains. The goal was simple: an enormous massacre of infidels.
Investigators discovered the plan in a file on a laptop hard drive. It was allegedly written by a British citizen with South Asian roots: Abu Issa Al-Hindi, a man with excellent connections to the top echelons of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist organization. Al-Hindi's résumé reads like the biography of a model jihadist. At 20, he converted from Hinduism to Islam, then learned the fundamentals of hate in London's radical mosques and went to the Kashmir region and Afghanistan to fight. On August 3, 2004, British authorities arrested Al-Hindi near London.
The plans found on his hard drive, though interspersed with gruesome fantasy, revealed a highly refined command of technology.
Al-Hindi's fellow Muslim extremists had even measured the normal wind pressure acting on building facades to determine their weakest points, locations likely to suffer the greatest damage in an attack.
The scenario on Al-Hindi's hard drive is reminiscent of the July 7 bomb attacks on the London Tube and a double-decker bus. By last Friday evening, it was still unclear who had detonated the bombs but the attacks, say British security experts, bear the handwriting of Islamic terrorists.
Perhaps as frightening as the bombs themselves is the fact that intelligence agents and investigators in Great Britain and throughout Europe had no idea an attack was imminent -- and this despite the fact that they have spent years trying to infiltrate the Islamic extremist network in Europe. Indeed, one month before the attacks, Scotland Yard lowered its terrorism alert level for the British capital by a notch.
But al-Qaida in Europe is not an organization that readily lends itself to infiltration or wire-tapping. That's because al-Qaida is not a fixed structure, but rather an ideology that has managed to fascinate young Islamists from Gibraltar to Scandinavia. These young terrorists may know each other and even cooperate when it comes to logistics, but they operate in small, flexible independent groups, making them almost impossible to catch.
London as a prime target, Germany also "enemy"
It has long been clear that Europeans, especially Britons, could be attacked at any time. The attacks in Istanbul in November 2003 (57 dead) and the train bombings in the Madrid suburbs on March 11, 2004 (191 dead) were only the beginning. "No country," says EU counterterrorism coordinator Gijs de Vries, "can nurture false hopes of being safe." German Interior Minister Otto Schily, who flew to London on Friday to meet with his British counterpart, warns that "radical Islamists have also explicitly named Germany as an enemy."
The old continent, once a place for Muslim extremists to withdraw and recuperate, has turned into a battlefield. Gilles Kepel, a French expert on Islam, is already referring to the current situation as a "fight for Europe."
For most experts, it was only a matter of time before Islamic militants would attack again. In Germany, national security officials have become so used to falling into "terror mode" that they can almost respond by rote. This time, by 2:00 p.m. Thursday, they held a teleconference to discuss the consequences of the attacks. "It was virtually certain than London would be attacked at some point," says a high-ranking German security official. Britain's massive deployment in Iraq makes it a prime target. "The same thing could happen here," says the expert. After all, he adds, there are German troops in Afghanistan.
Guido Steinberg, a terrorism expert working in the office of the German chancellor, summed up the situation with these words: "Terrorism is coming home." And it's coming home to those countries whose governments may have believed they were immune from terror because for years they have provided safe haven to notorious Islamic extremists.
The profile of a potential bomber
The biggest challenges European countries will now face are twofold: how to deal with the young offspring of immigrants living in Europe who have become captivated by the idea of global jihad, and how to deal with their own, self-imposed restrictions. Investigators are hampered in their efforts to pursue Islamic terrorists by Europe's open borders, by a lack of effective communication among intelligence agencies and, finally, by a lack of uniformity in counterterrorism strategies.
Their adversaries, on the other hand, are highly mobile, networked across the entire continent, supported by sympathizers and powerful financiers, but also able to operate independently. This new generation of holy warriors has already established sufficiently deep roots in Europe to be able to move about freely and without attracting attention. Many have German, Spanish, British or French passports. They often speak several languages, are employed and develop their attack plans in their free time. Security officials are dealing with fewer and fewer Islamic extremists who have just arrived from abroad -- with the exception of globetrotting preachers of hatred.
Dutch authorities, for example, were aware that Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin, was a member of an Islamic group. But they didn't consider Bouyeri to be a particularly important figure -- that is, until Bouyeri, wearing a white, floor-length shirt, tracked down filmmaker Theo van Gogh last November 2 on an Amsterdam street. He shot van Gogh several times, slit his throat with a butcher knife and then used another knife to pin a threat to kill politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali onto van Gogh's body.
What may at first have seemed to be an act committed by a lone madman was probably part of a larger plan -- and the doing of an entire group. Although the plan the group executed may have been what one Dutch intelligence official calls "a Dutch plan," it was acting in the spirit of Osama bin Laden.
From community worker to radical Muslim killer
The case illustrates how a trace can lead from one Islamic extremist cell to another. In June of last year, months before the Amsterdam murder, the Portuguese police arrested several suspected terrorists who were apparently planning to murder Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, the European Union Commission's President-designate. One of the main suspects had apparently shared an apartment in Amsterdam with Bouyeri, 27. Moreover, the men were traveling in a VW Golf that apparently belonged to Bouyeri.
Only after wiretapping an important telephone conversation did the police discover that the so-called Hofstad group was probably responsible for planning van Gogh's murder. It appears that at least twelve members of this group were involved in the preparations for the murder. The group has contacts in Belgium and Spain. Investigators also assume that there are links between the Hofstad group and a terrorism suspect involved in the 2003 suicide attacks in Casablanca.
And the investigations continue. A little more than a month ago, counterterrorism investigators arrested a Russian in the central French city of Tours who was being sought in the Netherlands for his alleged involvement in the van Gogh murder. The man had excellent contacts to Islamic extremists in Chechnya.
Bouyeri himself also typifies the new euro-Islamists. He seemed to be an extremely well-integrated Muslim -- that is, until he suddenly drifted off into the world of Islamic extremism. His parents arrived in the Netherlands in the 1960s and he was born there. He held Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, finished high school with good grades, and went on to study computer science at a Dutch university. His only noticeable ticks were the American gangster cap he wore and his involvement in community work. But he changed drastically in the fall of 2003.
He suddenly began adding verses from the Koran to articles he wrote for a community newspaper. He traded in his jeans and tennis shoes for a floor-length robe. Soon he was surviving on welfare and spending time at the Tawhid mosque, which was being observed by Dutch intelligence agents, who noticed that Bouyeri was becoming increasingly radical. But there were plenty of other "potentially dangerous men" who Dutch officials believed were more capable of violence than Bouyeri, whose trial begins on Monday. He has declined legal representation.
Spanish investigative judge and extremism expert Baltasar Garzon has identified a virtual "galaxy of small groups" in Europe. Garzon believes that the radicalization phase often lasts no more than a few weeks or months, adding that "the younger these people are, the more brutal they can be." Al-Qaida, says Garzon, is now nothing but an "ideological reference" for these people.
German Interior Minister Otto Schily complains that this "metastasizing" makes it incredibly difficult to combat Islamic extremists. He says that his agents are no longer dealing with a "hierarchical organization acting in a closed manner," but rather with groups "that hardly act within a logistically linked network at all anymore. Our goal now is to isolate them within the Muslim milieu."
Travel agents for young jihadists
The explosives in Madrid were not ignited remotely by attackers in the Hindukush region, but by immigrants who, at first glance, would have seemed unlikely to commit such acts of terror -- immigrants who lived in a mental black box, shut off from Western values, but nevertheless in the heart of Europe. However, the French intelligence service, DST, believes these groups are supported by an international logistical network. After all, the pilots who flew the September 11 planes lived in Hamburg, but met in Spain to make their final preparations.
Alleged al-Qaida terrorist Abu Dahdah -- who, together with 23 other suspects, is currently on trial in Spain for the Madrid bombings -- is believed to have arranged the meeting. One thing is clear, though: Abu Dahdah maintained constant contact with fellow Muslims throughout Europe.
Spanish authorities would have liked to have seen a Syrian-born German citizen added to the list of defendants in the Madrid trial. His name is Mamoun Darkazanli, and he is a Hamburg businessman who is currently in detention in Germany pending extradition. Germany's Federal Constitutional Court will soon decide whether German law permits Darkazanli to be extradited to Spain.
The travels of young men to fight in Iraq demonstrate just how well-networked the extremist environment is. European Muslims, especially from France, Great Britain and Germany, are going to war. In almost every European country there are what amount to travel agencies for those interested in fighting in Iraq. Middlemen, like Lokman Mohammed in Munich, Mohammed M. in Milan and Ata R. in Stuttgart arrange for young jihadists to travel to Baghdad or Mosul and, more ominously, back to Europe. When they return from the death zone, these Muslim extremists are equipped with fresh combat experience and filled with ideological indoctrination. It is these men who are considered particularly dangerous.
"Iraq," says Paris investigative judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, "is problem number one." The German and French intelligence agencies are both observing several dozen returnees, while the British and French authorities believe they have about 40 in each of their countries. But what about those who are under the radar? Those who have returned without being noticed and who know how to assemble and detonate explosives? Did the terrorists responsible for the London attack benefit from their knowledge?
Bin Laden orders more attacks in the West
Security officials currently see the Iraq connection as their most urgent problem. Investigators throughout Europe plan to convene soon to exchange information, and the German government has even set up a team at Berlin's counterterrorism center to deal specifically with this issue. One of the objectives of the effort will be to assess the risk of terrorism throughout Europe -- perhaps even to come up with an entirely new prognosis. There are growing indications that Middle Eastern militant organizations, such as the network headed by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, are beefing up their presence in Europe. Bin Laden himself has allegedly urged Zarqawi, the man responsible for much of the terrorist activity in Iraq, to prepare fighters for attacks in the West -- a request that's unlikely to pose much of a problem for the Jordanian sheikh.
Indeed, the European recruits are considered something of a burden in Iraq. Local fighters see them as soft and ineffective. For months, intelligence agencies have come across indications that Zarqawi may have already sent several of his closest associates to Europe.
Videos of Zarqawi's infamous achievements are already making the rounds among radical Muslims in Europe. Politicians and police officials, initially stunned, are now observing this dangerous trend with consternation. After all, anything that provokes fear or anger in the West is attractive to radical Muslims. The French domestic intelligence service, for example, has observed a consistently large number of fanatical Salafi preachers in Europe who incite their audiences to violence, and who treat attackers as heroes of Islam.
Germany as fund-raiser for terrorists, Bosnia as melting pot
The case of Ali al-Fadhil, the presumed explosives expert of the Iraqi underground organization Ansar al-Islam, demonstrates just how effectively the connections between Iraq and Europe work. In September 2003, a young Turkmen using the alias "Resgar" contacted fellow Muslims in Munich, asking for logistical assistance. It appeared that al-Fadhil had blown off both of his hands, probably while handling a land mine, and was urgently in need of medical attention.
Al-Fadhil was ultimately smuggled via Milan and France -- without a hitch -- and into Great Britain, where he went underground. The middleman who made the journey possible was Munich-based Kurd Lokman Mohammed.
In terms of logistics, Germany plays an important role for would-be terrorists. For instance, Ata R., an unemployed window washer, was contacted via e-mail by anonymous individuals, who are presumed to be leading Ansar activists from northern Iraq. They then asked for Ata R.'s assistance. In a letter written in October 2004, allegedly mailed by the deputy chief of Ansar al-Islam himself, Ata R. was told: "The company's situation is making headway, and great profits are on the way, God willing. Perhaps you will hear about this on television." The letter ends with an appeal to donate more: "However, we will need a lot of capital, especially this month."
And the money did materialize. In fact, close to € 15,000 was sent, through a so-called Hawala transfer which went from Kuwait to Stuttgart and then from Stuttgart to Iraq. And Muslim brothers in German mosques continued to ask for more donations.
The Madrid bombings and the murder of Theo van Gogh helped overturn an old theory has been overturned: that immigrants would never spit into the soup they eat themselves, that is, that they would not attack in those countries that have offered them a home.
In the past, many immigrants were only interested in conflicts in their native countries. Backed with Saudi money, they began spouting propaganda against the regimes in Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt. But some soon became involved in an international jihad, travelling as mujahedeen to Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.
Since the 1990s, Bosnia has been considered a melting pot for international terrorism. It is believed that 5,000 foreign Muslims travelled there to fight in the war. If the Europeans fail in the Balkans, a dangerous new generation of Islamic extremists could develop there.
Some Saudis are also pumping dollars into the former war zone. Whenever the authorities ban one of their dubious charitable organizations, such as the Haramain Foundation, new organizations suddenly pop up and continue distributing funds from the same sources. The charities, says one terrorism expert, operate like a "bypass for a heart patient."
Will Europe have to get used to bombs and death?
All over Europe mosques are being built, grandiose structures incorporating glass, marble and tall minarets, even in the most remote villages. Young Muslims learn the values of extremist Wahhabism in brand-new training centers. Western intelligence agencies believe that 3,000 Muslims have already been radicalized in such places. In many cases, returnees from war zones, who have come to trust one another after having fought side-by-side, form the framework for al-Qaida in their European home countries. Clusters of young radicals then form around these mujahedeen who have fought in Bosnia, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq. Terrorism experts largely concur that the numbers of hard-core jihad sympathizers are high in almost all Western European countries. The range goes from about 300 in Germany to an estimated 1,000 in Great Britain.
Investigators seem to have a fairly good grip on the Muslim extremist scene. Or at least enough to have relatively accurate information on which groups are only verbally radical and which are or could turn violent. But investigators know far too little about what their plans and about who they are recruiting. For example, no one expected that someone like Serhane Ben Abdelmayid Farkhet would become radicalized. The 36-year-old Tunisian studied business administration in Madrid, was married to a Moroccan, and seemed, for all intents and purposes, headed for success in the West. In fact, Farkhet was, for a while, his real estate company's top-selling agent.
But under the influence of a radical friend, Farkhet transformed himself into an agent of death. He secretly met with al-Qaida agents in Istanbul and, in Spain, helped assemble the March 11 group of attackers. On April 3, 2004, the Spanish police attempted to storm a Madrid apartment building where Farkhet and six accomplices were hiding. Before the police could apprehend them, the seven men blew themselves up.
The television images of the devastated building depict scenes that Europeans had been more accustomed to seeing in the Middle East. Are these images that Europeans will now find themselves forced to become accustomed to?
Speaking the language of "sword and blood"
Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of the British domestic intelligence service, MI5, disclosed several months ago that authorities had thwarted a number of attacks in Great Britain alone. Her predecessor, Sir John Stevens, who was previously the head of Scotland Yard, estimated that about half a dozen attacks had been prevented, adding that one of the foiled plots could have led to an attack of the same magnitude as the Madrid bombings.
The British capital, derisively referred to by some as "Londonistan," has always been filled with Islamic extremists from all over the world. The two best-known preachers of hatred are Abu Hamsa, who has a memorable prosthetic hook hand, and Abu Qatada, who has been arrested several times and whose videotaped sermons are popular among fans in Germany. On one of his videotapes, discovered in the apartment of a Hamburg Islamic extremist, Abu Qatada says that the only language "the infidels" understand is the language "of sword and blood."
The Muslim Brotherhood and the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which German Interior Minister Otto Schily banned in Germany after the attacks of September 11, also maintain a strong presence in London. In addition, many radical Islamic publications -- foreign issues of Saudi Arabian newspapers, for example -- are printed in the city on the Thames. Hate sermons by radical sheikhs are also placed onto the Internet in London. And despite crackdowns by the British police in recent months, radical Islamic propaganda continues unabated.
The London scene has long acted as a magnet for potential jihadists from all over Europe. It also attracted a German convert to Islam, Dennis J, who in 2001, at the age of 19, travelled from his home in the German state of Hessen to Afghanistan. After the September 11 attacks, he was arrested and sent back to Germany. He didn't stay long. Instead, he went to London and began spending time in Abu Hamsa's mosque.
Algerian Yacine Aknouche, 31, also traveled to England because he was fascinated by the radical imams. At first, Aknouche looked for a job in a café, but soon he was running a credit card counterfeiting operation. When he was later questioned by authorities, Aknouche said that the preachers at the Finsbury Park mosque had, "confirmed the religious value of this type of activity."
Aknouche began travelling back and forth between Paris and London, met with underground activists in Berlin and lent a Muslim brother a forged passport in Frankfurt. Finally he obtained a forged French passport and other papers in London and used them to travel to an al-Qaida training camp in the Hindukush region. Aknouche was later arrested in France.
A man from Germany is also believed to be a key player on the business end of radical Islam in London. He is a Tunisian named Abderrazak A., who lived in Karlsruhe in the late 1990s and, as early as 1995, was suspected of having arranged for recruits to travel to Afghanistan for the "holy war."
Loads of foiled attacks
Although the Islamic extremists in Great Britain seem to be more active than those in Germany, German investigators have also reported a number of foiled attacks by local militants. In Frankfurt, for example, a group of Islamic extremists were convicted in 2003 for having attempted to detonate explosives at the Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg. Members of the Al-Tawhid group are currently on trial in Düsseldorf for allegedly planning to launch attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets. In Berlin, three Islamic extremists are believed to have planned to assassinate the Iraqi prime minister when he was visiting the German capital last December.
The situation is similar in other EU countries. In 2002, French authorities thwarted plans to attack Russian installations in Paris by an organization known as the "Chechnya Group." In the summer of 2001, French investigators broke up a network run by Algerian-born Frenchman Djamel Beghal and consisting mainly of Afghanistan veterans. Beghal had allegedly planned an attack on the US embassy in Paris. And in Spain, several Islamic extremists were arrested in October 2004 for having planned to blow up several buildings, including the national court building, with 500 kilograms of explosives.
What has changed in Europe as a result of such horror scenarios? Have the continent's security agencies, spurred to action by the recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul and Madrid, truly become more agile? Or is the joint battle against terrorism hampered by the same kind of routine thinking that has plagued Europeans in other legislative endeavors?
So far, the results of Europe's efforts to fight terrorism have been sobering. National governments have been slow to implement resolutions adopted in Brussels. And although information gleaned by investigators reaches Europe's joint police agency, Europol, far more quickly these days, the volume of data remains sparse. In many cases, agencies are still dragging their feet when it comes to exchanging information. But there is one thing that no country in Western Europe seems to lack: the heartfelt words of politicians claiming to want fundamental change.
Europe's open borders and tangled bureaucracy help terrorists
If only investigators had cooperated more effectively, perhaps they would even have uncovered the plans of "Mohammed the Egyptian," a presumed co-conspirator in the attacks on Madrid. German authorities already noticed Rabei Osman Ahmed -- his real name -- as a vocal lay preacher. Although he was investigated, German authorities concluded that he was not particularly dangerous. After the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, when German officials decided to take a closer look at Ahmed's old file, they discovered that that man had just left the country for Spain. They documented him as "trace 59."
German and Spanish authorities exchanged a small amount of information in the ensuing months. But it was not until February 2003 that the Spaniards proposed a systematic exchange of information relating to "trace 59." Meanwhile, however, Ahmed had already established contacts in several European countries. He travelled to Paris in the same month. But then his trail went cold again, somewhere in the maze of the big city and in the tangle of the conflicting jurisdictions of European investigators. The explosives in Madrid were detonated one year later.
The Ahmed case, writes the Washington Post, reveals Europe's greatest weakness in the fight against terrorism: its wide-open borders, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, its legal impediments and bureaucratic procedures, which prevented investigators from cooperating more closely.
Ahmed's odyssey through Europe finally took him to Italy. Investigators questioned him in Milan, where he was arrested last June. Although portions of the recorded interrogations were leaked to Italian journalists, German investigators were the last to receive copies. At one point, a German security official complained that "I first read about the details of the telephone conversations in Corriere della Sera."
On March 25, 2004, shortly after the Madrid attacks, the heads of state of the EU countries issued a joint statement in which they vowed to do "everything within our powers to combat all forms of terrorism." They also promised to amend and strengthen their laws on terrorism.
Is terrorism on vacation? Or just Europe?
Similar promises were almost made after September 11, 2001. The next year, member states of the EU Commission were asked to report on how they had implemented the resolutions adopted a year earlier in their domestic laws. But only five member states complied with the request, including Germany, and of those, only two submitted the requested material in its entirety. A disappointed EU Commission concluded that "a document prepared on this basis would have been practically meaningless."
In a memo written in mid-June, the EU's counterterrorism coordinator complained that "a number of details," including those relating to projects from 2001, had not been observed by all states. Commenting on the hesitant EU during Europe's traditional summer vacation period, Newsweek derisively asked if terrorism was on vacation. If there is even a wakeup call in Europe, many of its officials will be taking it under a beach umbrella, the weekly said.
From the US perspective, it seems hard to believe that the top post at Europol was vacant for months, especially in light of the current threat. As the EU's central police agency, Europol provides massive amounts of data and analyses, and acts as an interface among the member states' security agencies.
German Europol director Jürgen Storbeck left office in late July of 2004. The Spaniards, Italians, Germans and French each proposed their own candidate, leading to a prolonged dispute over the best solution. It was only in late February of this year that they managed to agree on Max-Peter Ratzel, an official at Germany's Federal Office of Criminal Investigation.
Despite these difficulties, Europol now obtains vastly more data on Islamic extremists than before the attacks in the United States. "The trend is pointing upward," says de Vries, although he warns that the situation is "still not satisfactory."
Intent to commit terrorism acts hard to prove
That's because Islamic extremists like Andrew Rowe, 33, are taking advantage of the elimination of borders to further their own ends. Rowe, a convert with a British passport, travelled all over Europe for years to meet with fellow Muslims. Investigators have reconstructed his travels across Germany, England and Turkey. They believe he was a courier travelling among militant cells, and he has also been traced to the group implicated in the Casablanca attacks.
Rowe is a presumed mid-ranking member of al-Qaida, where he is known by his nickname, "Yussuf the Jamaican." About a year and a half ago, Rowe spent several days in a hotel in Frankfurt. When he tried to travel to England through the Eurotunnel, British authorities arrested him at the border and he is now behind bars.
Investigators have been looking into the case ever since. An analysis of the devout Muslim's clothing revealed traces of nitroglycerin adhering to his socks. Investigators believe that he may have been working on a miniature bomb similar to that which "shoe bomber" Richard Reid planned to detonate on board a transatlantic flight in December 2001. They also suspect that Rowe may have travelled to Germany to purchase additional materials. Rowe himself has been uncooperative and unwilling to talk to officials.
By now everyone has recognized the dangers posed by someone like Rowe. Both left-wing and right-wing governments in Europe have sharpened their approaches to Islamic extremists. Spanish officials arrested 130 extremists last year, Great Britain has arrested 700 suspected terrorists since September 11, and German police have been staging major, nationwide raids on almost monthly basis.
But Europe's laws complicate the task of combating terrorism. No matter how suspiciously Islamic extremists behave and how shady their contacts may be, the intent to commit acts of terror is often difficult to prove.
A recent ruling by a Milan court is symptomatic of the problem. In late January, an Italian judge acquitted five suspects accused of having recruited suicide bombers for Iraq in 2003 and handed down lesser sentences. The judge held that the men saw themselves as guerilla fighters, and that it could not be proven that they had planned to attack civilian targets.
One of the defendants, together with Mohammed D., was once part of the group of Hamburg Islamic extremists associated with the pilots who attacked New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. He was released from detention in early February.
As such, Europe, insists de Vries, "remains vulnerable."
Cate prostii si dezinformare sunt vehiculate de cand Uniunea Sovietica Ailalta a ramas singura.
Atacurile din Londra reusesc bine mersi sa faca comportamentul israelienilor din Palestina pe intelesul democratiilor vestice.
Fiti atenti ca teoria lui Bush si a aliatilor sai, "luptam cu teroristii in Irak pentru a nu avea de a face cu ei in orasele noastre", este a doua oara infirmata major de aceste atentate de la Londra. Mai mult, aceleasi trupe de kommando ideologic de la Washington care au dus la razboiul din Irak agita mediile acum cu ideea ca Teheranul ar fi fost in umbra atacurilor de la 9.11. Parca am mai auzit asta acum 2-3 ani.
Cateva intrebari la care raspunsurile pot deveni foarte incommode:
Pe langa faptul ca versiunea originala cu "home made bombs" actionate prin telefoane cellulare a fost schimbata cu... "atentatori sinucigasi", ca de altfel si amestecul Al-Qaida schimbat cu muslimi britanici, ar mai fi totusi ceva nelamuriri:
1. De ce atentatorii sinucigasi au nevoie de "timer" pentru declasarea bombelor? Chiar ar trebui sa credem ca toti atentatorii au murit gresind setarea bombelor?
2. De ce atentatorii poarta acte de identitate? Ca sa nu dea bataie de cap politiei cand fac rapoarte? Si cum de au ramas intacte? Ca si cel al lui Ata de la WTC.
3. Daca toate cele patru camere de luat vederi din autobuzul care a sarit in aer nu functionau, cum de politia stie ce s-a intamplat in autobuz?
4. De ce Jack Straw s-a repezit sa spuna ca a fost actiunea Al-Qaida fara sa aiba nici o informatie imediata?
5. Cum de au stiut englezii sa-l informeze pe Netanyahu despre atentat? Si daca au stiut de ce nu au blocat intregul metrou in timp?...Sau l-au blocat!?...
6. De ce sistemul de metrou mai functiona la mai bine de o ora dupa explozia autobuzului?...Security???
7. Ce s-a intamplat cu stirile din Canada si Noua Zeelanda referitoare la impuscarea a doi suspecti de catre politie, langa Canary Wharf?
8. Atentatorii sant morti, deci nu pot vorbi. Dar cum de-au fost identificati ca fiind atentatori? Pe langa faptul ca, conform rapoartelor de politie, bombele au fost atat de puternice, ca nici un cadavru nu putut fi identificat.
Hmm!
Sunt atât de încântat că ruptura mea a fost restaurată, fostul meu soț sa întors după ce mi-a lăsat pe mine și pe cei doi pentru o altă femeie. am fost atât de fericit să vă întâlnesc cu Dr. James Oyi Blogs https://supremespellcast.blogspot.com cum îi ajută pe mulți oameni să aducă acolo Lover înapoi, așa că îl contactez și pe mine. așa mi-a ajutat Dr. James Oyi să-mi aducă soțul înapoi .. O mare mulțumire pentru tine Dr. James pentru că nu m-am gândit niciodată că ex-soțul meu se va întoarce la mine atât de repede cu vraja ta. Esti cel mai bun si cel mai mare din lume. dacă sunteți aici și aveți nevoie de Ex Lover înapoi sau soțul dvs. sa mutat la o altă femeie, nu mai plângeți, contactați acum acest vrăjitor puternic. Iată contactul lui: drjamesoyi@gmail.com sau ce poate face / apela pe + 2348026905065 / + 2347053955948
Trimiteți un comentariu