Snak

Men jeg vil ikke give op. Integration skal være mulig.

Ligesom lederne i Østblokken sagde - "det skal være muligt" - i stedet for at revidere deres syn på samfundet og den menneskelige natur.

Eller som *vi* sagde: Demokrati og menneskerettigheder i Irak, Afghanistan, Syrien "skal være muligt", for ellers er liberalismens universalistiske og egalitaristiske dogmer modbevist, og Hitler har vundet.

Integrationens og masseindvandringens svar på "jeg har faktisk en sort ven".

Hvad mere interessant kunne måske være - har du en brun ven af islams dyder, du holder nær og ikke ser ned på? Vielleicht?

Jeg accepterer ikke "proppe hele Europa og Vesten med uendelige mængder af bomalianere til evig tid indtil den onde hvide mand - hvis skyld det naturligvis er - finder den hellige gral og løser alle problemer i hele verden og dermed alle flygtningestrømme nogensinde for bestandig" som et svar der kan bruges til andet end studentikost navlepilleri.

Det er tydeligvis dig som blander race og had ind i dette, hvad er din kilde til alt det du skriver?

Så du vil ikke have en fri verdensorden, som er bygget på frihed, demokrati og retsorden for alle?

"Jeg vil gerne medgive, at vi har en udfordring med muslimsk indvandring på tværs af Europa. At man holder igen med at integrere sig og lader oprindelig kultur have for meget magt."

Så vidt jeg kan se har vi flere udfordringer, som løber sammen - og én af dem er det langvarige migrations- og flygtningepres mod Europa. En anden er stigende økonomisk ulighed i mange europæiske modtagerlande. En tredje er den langvarige krise i hovedparten af de vestlige demokratier. En fjerde er den globaliserede tilstand, som skaber kulturelle vagabonder og turister med meget afvigende opfattelser af udviklingen. Læg gerne evt. yderligere til. Disse udfordringer interagerer naturligvis - så hvis vi tror at der findes enkle forklaringer bilder vi os nok også hurtigt ind at der findes enkle løsninger.

Nu er din brugerprofil i rød, Atlas - hvilket ikke er overraskende, i og med at du gentagne gange gik ad hominem ... men det kan være at du læser mit svar alligevel. En skam i øvrigt at du dermed nok ikke får fulgt op på de spørgsmål, du gerne ville have reageret på i den geopolitiske debattråd. Far vel.

OC, jeg blev for ej så længe siden spurgt om noget lignende og mit umiddelbare svar kan læses hér: https://bold.dk/snak/off-topic/dansk-politik?side=3998&room_id=4&thread_id=72740

Hvad mener du i øvrigt at der bør/skal/kan gøres?

Politiet i Tel Aviv aflyser kampen mellem Hapoel Tel Aviv og Maccabi Tel Aviv på grund af voldelige optøjer.

Aflysningen kommer blot få dage efter, at Aston Villa er blevet forhindret i at tage imod fans fra Maccabi, og kort tid efter urolighederne mellem Maccabi-fans og Ajax i Amsterdam.

Optøjerne i Amsterdam opstod angiveligt efter Maccabi-fans havde brændt et palæstinensisk flag, ødelagt en taxa og råbt slagord som “Fuck you, Palestine” og “IDF win, we will fuck the Arabs".

Det vides endnu ikke, om Maccabi eller Hapoel bærer ansvaret for disse åbenlyse antisemitiske optøjer i Tel Avivs gader.

Uuuuuups.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/police-drew-up-false-evidence-after-decision-to-ban-maccabi-tel-aviv-fans-9m6pw5qbd

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/03/police-mosques-hosted-anti-semitic-preachers-maccabi-ban/

Det er svært ikke at være enig i Liz Truss´ vurdering af, at West-Midlands Police mere eller mindre er infiltreret af islamister, eller som minimum danser efter islamisters pibe.

Men altså... det var jo bare en sober sikkerhedsforanstaltning.

Uuuuuuuuppppppsssss.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maccabi-tel-aviv-fans-west-midlands-police-b2895524.html

Igen, der burde egentlig være Maccabi Tel Aviv året rundt.

Men både Villas og Birminghams fans står og macho-LARP´er hver anden weekend, mens deres by er overtaget af pakistanere.

Pfft, hvem bekymrer sig om sekundaklubber som Maccabi Tel Aviv anyway...

Nå, men jeg tror bestemt, Dagens Nyheter har smuglæst på bold.dk, for de fremfører i dagens leder i hvert fald samme tanke, jeg havde ovre i den anden tråd:

https://www.dn.se/ledare/ingen-vill-diskutera-svenska-karnvapen-men-vi-maste/

Ingen vill diskutera svenska kärnvapen – men vi måste

Det finns ingen anledning att låtsas som att Natomedlemskapet blev som vi hadde hoppats. Donald Trump hotar nu inte bara att lämna Europa – han hotar Europa.

...Og resten er så bag en mur, men jeg har fundet en anonym oversætters engelske gengivelse, som jeg håber er okay at poste. Med alle de USA-eksperter, vi har, går det nok at skifte sprog:

“I don’t need international law,” Donald Trump declares in an interview with The New York Times. His only limitation in dealing with other countries? “My morality. Myself. That’s the only thing that can stop me.”

The president further notes that he may have to choose between Greenland and NATO – adding that the alliance is nothing without the United States.

The first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been dramatic – and has involved a marked shift from his first four years. Back then, we were mainly afraid that he would withdraw the U.S. from NATO and leave Europe alone with Vladimir Putin. Now it is obvious that he is prepared to use our dependence to force concessions from us.

Like Greenland.

“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is said to have remarked. And of course we should hope for a future rendezvous with the United States. But then the relationship must be more equal – and we must first realize that the core of the one we currently have is crumbling.

According to the news agency Reuters, the Pentagon told European diplomats in December that we have one year to take over responsibility for the defense of our continent. When European leaders discussed precisely that issue this spring, the timeline was between five and ten years. Of course, it cannot be fully achieved in one year, but the fact remains that Europe must very quickly replace the United States – capability by capability.

This also applies to the nuclear umbrella. After J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last winter, Emmanuel Macron opened the door to French nuclear weapons also protecting others, followed by a joint declaration with Keir Starmer to include the British ones as well. Talks with the Germans began in August.

If Europe had stood united, had full awareness of the crisis, and consistently demonstrated resolve, one might perhaps have been able to calmly conclude that we were on the right path. But Viktor Orbán constantly undermines unity. Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez says the Russians will not march across the Pyrenees anyway. Where the French, British, and Italians are supposed to find the money for rearmament remains a mystery.

Moreover, Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen may soon govern in London and Paris. Le Pen says no to European cooperation around French nuclear weapons.

Was it pointless for Sweden to join NATO? No, we are still safer together with others, and membership enables a much deeper defense cooperation in the Nordic region. But it would be foolish to pretend that it turned out as intended, or that our primary task now is to build infrastructure to receive help from outside. Nor is this merely about fairly distributing within Europe the burden to be taken over from the United States.

Of course we should count on Spaniards and Italians having our backs – but also on the fact that this means we will be standing in the front line. Not everyone will spend 3.5 percent of GDP on the military, and those of us who can afford it and grasp the seriousness must be prepared to spend more than that. And there should be a plan for what happens if more than just the United States wavers.

Therefore, a discussion about nuclear weapons is also required that goes beyond how the French and British ones could protect the entire continent. Is a capability needed in Northern Europe? The combination of nuclear technical expertise and an advanced defense industry would in that case give Sweden a key role.

An obvious risk of Trump’s policy is widespread nuclear proliferation. No one wants a situation where many countries feel compelled to acquire their own weapons. But shared Nordic nuclear weapons – perhaps together with Germany – could counteract precisely that.

These are not questions anyone wishes to discuss, but when the United States fundamentally betrays its role as guarantor of Europe’s security order and lashes out at allies – then they must be put on the table.

-

Er det bare at komme i gang? Atomvåben ja tak?

Episk cope fra svensk side at tro at atomvåben kan redde dem.

Det er vel lige så meget Norden, de altruistiske svenskere vil redde.