Dahlan explained that all Hamas needs to do is to follow in Fatah's footsteps. It should say that the PA government accepts the West's terms, but in the meantime, those terms will remain inapplicable to Hamas as a "resistance group." In that way, Dahlan explained, Hamas will be able to receive all the West's billions in financial assistance.
As he put it, "Do you imagine that Gaza's reconstruction is possible under the shadow of this bickering between us and the international community? [Gaza reconstruction] can only be dealt with by a government... that is acceptable to the international community so that we can... benefit from the international community." (...)»Novo exemplo de engano islâmico, no qual o ocidente se dispõe a acreditar, diz respeito ao comportamento recente do presidente sírio Bashar Assad. Sigamos Glick: «(...) Syrian President Bashar Assad this week told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that he and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were just a stone's throw away from a peace deal last year. Last week Assad participated in what was supposed to be an anti-Iranian conference in Saudi Arabia. Assad knew that Washington and Paris would pay no attention when upon returning from Riyadh he announced that Syria's relations with Iran will never be weakened. He knew they will never question his false account of his indirect negotiations with Israel. He and Olmert couldn't have been a stone's throw away from a peace accord, because Assad refused to have any direct contact with Israel. (...)» Glick conclui com uma avaliação do que parecem ser os objectivos do ocidente na sua maneira de enfrentar (ou de não enfrentar) os conflitos e as tensões no médio-oriente, a julgar pela sua ostensiva complacência para com a persistência islâmica na diplomacia da mentira: «(...) [I]f the American and European pursuits of peace with Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have not caused them to change their behavior one iota, what are the Western powers talking about when they say that it is imperative to push the peace process or engage the Syrians and the Iranians? After all, Western leaders must know that these processes are complete farces.
Sadly, the answer is clear. Western leaders are not pursuing peace in these processes. They are pursuing appeasement. They call this appeasement process a peace process for two reasons. First, they know their countrymen don't like the sound of appeasement. And second, by claiming to be championing the noble goal of peace in our time, they feel free to attack anyone who points out the folly of their actions as a warmongering member of the Israel Lobby.»Via Jihad Watch.
«Today, in a time of wars and rumors of wars emanating from the Islamic world — from the current conflict in Gaza, to the saber-rattling of nuclear-armed Pakistan and soon-to-be Iran — the need for non-Muslims to better understand Islam’s doctrines and objectives concerning war and peace, and everything in between (treaties, diplomacy), has become pressing. (...) Before being in a position to answer such questions, one must first appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of mainstream (Sunni) Islam. (...) [O]pposed to most other religions, Islam is a clearly defined faith admitting of no ambiguity: indeed, according to Sharia (i.e., “Islam’s way of life,” more commonly translated as “Islamic law”) every conceivable human act is categorized as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory. “Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what Allah (via the Koran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the hadith) have to say about any given subject, and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists — collectively known as the ulema, literally, the “ones who know” — have articulated it. Consider the concept of lying. According to Sharia, deception is not only permitted in certain situations but is sometimes deemed obligatory. For instance, and quite contrary to early Christian tradition, not only are Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatized; many jurists have decreed that, according to Koran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie. Much of this revolves around the pivotal doctrine of taqiyya. (...) According to the authoritative Arabic text Al-Taqiyya fi Al-Islam, “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream.The primary Koranic verse sanctioning deception vis-à-vis non-Muslims states: “Let believers [Muslims] not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (3:28; other verses referenced by the ulema in support of taqiyya include 2:173, 2:185, 4:29, 16:106, 22:78, 40:28). Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.” Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion, Abu Darda, who said, “Let us smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them”; another companion, al-Hassan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].” (...)»Este texto, cuja leitura integral se recomenda, abre uma janela para uma melhor compreenção do Islão, da sua persistência no conflito armado, das condições em que aceita uma trégua, a disposição com que se compromete, ou não se compromete, na verdade, na trégua. Quem os ler, não poderá evitar um movimento de cautelosa desconfiança da próxima vez que ouvir algum líder religioso islâmico ou algum líder político, islâmico ou não, falar em negociações para a paz, ou a reivindicar para os muçulmanos envolvidos num qualquer conflito armado o estatuto de vítimas inocentes.
«International terrorists waging war against the United States cannot be treated as if they were ordinary defendants. Those who say otherwise, and who would treat terrorist operatives as if they were mere civilians, are trying to impose on the United States the standards of foolhardy treaties that the United States has never ratified — precisely because accepting such standards “would improperly reward an enemy that violates the laws of war by operating as a loose network and camouflaging its forces as civilians.” To protect national security, the president must have the authority to detain anyone who, in his judgment, is helping the enemy. And anyone means anyone: It matters not if such suspects “have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations.” If the president’s unilateral authority to detain were “limited to persons captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan,” this would “unduly hinder both the President’s ability to protect our country from future acts of terrorism and his ability to gather vital intelligence regarding the capability, operations, and intentions of this elusive and cunning adversary.” You’re probably thinking the quotes above reflect the world according to Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, or some similar Bush-era incubus. In fact, they describe — with words drawn directly from Eric Holder’s Justice Department — the Obama administration’s official guidance on enemy combatants. The Obama administration won’t lower itself to call these terrorist captives “enemy combatants,” notwithstanding that they are part of the “enemy” the administration concedes is conducting “battle” against us in the “war” he admits we are in. The guidance, made public last Friday in a DOJ submission in federal district court, marks quite a turnabout for the president and his attorney general. During last year’s campaign, Obama was sharply dismissive of the Bush policy of detaining enemy com — er, whatever you call ’em, without trial. (...) (...) Say this much about Messrs. Cheney, Addington, and Yoo: Whether you agree with their muscular take on executive power (I happen to agree with it), it was at least a cogent view, no matter how frightening it may have seemed to international-law professors. They were saying that the Constitution gives the president power to protect the nation from external threats to national security, and that the courts have no power to second-guess the president in this realm. By contrast, Obama says he doesn’t need Article II; he can live within the AUMF and international law, which, he says, limit him to detaining only those who have provided substantial support to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. Fine, but what does “substantial” mean, and who are these “associated forces”? Obama won’t tell you. Those definitions may vary from “case to case,” says the guidance, such that “the contours of ‘substantial support’ and ‘associated forces’ bases of detention will need to be further developed in their application to concrete facts in individual cases.” (...) (...) But when it comes to explaining whom he might detain, Obama is reserving to himself the right to make it up as he goes along. »
«(...) What most people are unaware of is that there are three types of stem cell research: there is embryonic stem cell research (ESC), there is induced pluripotent (IPSC) research, and adult stem cell research (ASC). When Barack Obama rescinded George Bush's ban on federal funding on certain types of embryonic stem cell research he also rescinded Bush's Executive Order 13435 which had provided federal funding for induced pluripotent stem cell research using harmless adult stem cells manipulated into mimicking embryonic stem cells without the risk ESC cells entail. This is where 72 different diseases are now being remedied or cured. (...) (...)I t is well known that lab animals given embryonic stem cells routinely develop tumors and other malignant growths that eventually kill them. There is a 100 percent mortality rate among lab animals that develop these tumors. That's why George Bush banned this lethal form of research that Barack Obama, who should have known better, has now legitimized by overturning this life-saving ban. The reason that major drug companies such as Merck and Pfizer are not funding ESC research is because they have seen the research and it scared the daylights out of them. They realized that if they injected ESC cells into human beings and like lab animals, they show signs of cancers or lesions or tumors there will be huge class action suits, because they would have ignored all of the available data in research that shows that that's exactly what will happen. (...)»Problemas éticos que são hipocritamente descartados através da tal suposta separação entre ciência e política, como se a ciência - qualquer ciência, neste caso a embriologia - pudesse ser uma disciplina autónoma do saber humano e responder a todas as questões que se nos colocam na nossa passagem pela Terra e, muito em especial, às questões que se colocam aos próprios cientistas, as que emergem das suas investigações. Sobre esta matéria, ler o texto de Steve Chapman, também no Town Hall, cuja conclusão destaco:
«(...) He (o Presidente Obama) did, however, reject another option. "We will ensure," he said, "that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society."
But this position is hard to square with his professed approach. On one hand, the president says his policy is "about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion." On the other, he will use coercion to keep them from doing reproductive cloning.
What this mandate means is simple: It may be permissible for scientists to create cloned embryos and kill them. It's not permissible to create cloned embryos and let them live. Their cells may be used for our benefit, but not for their own.
There lies the reality of embryonic stem cell research: It turns incipient human beings into commodities to be exploited for the sake of people who are safely past that defenseless stage of their lives. It's a change that poses risks not just to days-old human embryos. The rest of us may one day reap important medical benefits from this research. But we may lose something even more vital.»
Uma separação cruenta e com tremendas consequências.
There is no question that radical left-wing politics is going to take center stage in the policies of the Department of Justice over the next four years, to the detriment of all Americans and the well-being of our nation. As Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society has said, “We are on the brink of having the most Culture of Death, anti-family Justice Department ever.”»
Aos poucos, mas num curtíssimo intervalo de tempo, os mitos da melhor transição entre presidências, da Administração mais competente e do melhor presidente dos EUA parecem desmoronar-se.
Apesar do cansaço alegadamente acumulado devido a uma dedicação frenética à resolução dos problemas económicos e financeiros do USA - o qual foi apresentado como justificação para a desrespeitosa recepção ao primeiro-ministro inglês -, uma dos funções da competência directa e exclusiva da presidência, a constituição da equipa do Tesouro, parece estar a ser negligenciada. A esmagadora maioria dos lugares de topo no Tesouro americano estão por ocupar, após 4 meses de transição e mês e meio de exercício de funções.
E, ao que parece, não são apenas os cargos de topo que estão por preencher: o de secretária/o recepcionista/a também está vago. Addendum: mais nomeações falhadas.
- 40 chicotadas e quatro meses de prisão para a senhora de 75 anos e para o putativo enteado;
- 60 chicotadas e seis meses de prisão para o amigo do putativo enteado.