Magnus Norell har en krönika på engelska i den nya utrikesbloggen om vilks vilket jag inte tycker är intressant. Vad jag däremot tycker är intressant är Magnus Norells något skeptiska kommentar om de hot som ska ha kommit från al-Baghdadi.
Varför har inte media uppmärksammat vad även Norell nu pekar på. Att hoten kom från en person som antingen är död eller inte existerar. Detta har inte bara stått i underättelserapporter utan även i reuters telegram vilken journalister borde kunna hitta. Istället har hoten slagits upp stort i svensk media speciellt på ledarsidor som SvDs av deras ledande Al Quaida jägare Per Gudmundsson. Vilkas intresse går tidningar som SVD och DN om de haussar upp ett hot som kanske inte ens existerar?
Utrikesbloggen – Magnus Norell
It went as far as a group of ambassadors from Moslem countries asked to see the Prime Minister to protest. Trying to avoid a ‘Danish’ escalation (Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen, it will be recalled, refused to meet with Moslem ambassadors at first, stating that this was not an issue for the government), Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt met with the ambassadors who also seemed pleased after the meeting.
This, however, failed to stop an escalation and death-threats were issued against Lars Vilks and the editor-in-chief of Nerikes Allehanda, Ulf Johansson. An expected media-hype ensued and Vilks and Johansson got special police protection.
The fact that the issuer of the threat, a man calling himself Omar al-Baghdadi of the Al Qaeda in Iraq, is, according to intelligence reports either dead or is a name of a person that does not exist, was not widely reported. Death-threats should of course not be taken lightly, and there is always the risk that a lone person will take matters into his own hands and try to carry out such a threat.
At the same time it is clear that threats like these mainly have quite another purpose. Whoever lies behind this knows that using Al Qaeda and picking on an issue like cartoons published in the Western media, will get immediate attention, not least in the West.
It is mainly for internal consumption within the Jihadi groups and used as a way to motivate followers. At the same time, events like this one help the Jihadi’s to set the agenda and keep the conflict between ‘us’ and ‘them’ going.
Thus it also forces many Moslems outside the Islamist circles to ‘pick a side’; i.e, it makes it much harder for secular Moslems, or just plain un-interested ones, to stay out of the fray. The agenda is set along Islamist lines, and we are stepping right into the trap, partly through the media-hype but also by raising the issue to the level of ambassadorial meetings and statements from the government and political establishment as a whole.
Relaterade Inlägg: