30.11.09

Minaretes e suas mequitas

Sobre a escolha do local em que são construídas as mesquitas, excerto de uma boa peça de Seth J. Frantzman no Jerusalem Post.
«(...) A survey of historical placement of mosques in important cities and newly conquered Muslim lands, as well as a survey of the placement of mosques in diverse neighborhoods, shows that their placement is anything but random and that strikingly often they are built next to the houses of prayer or the neighborhoods of non-Muslims.

Across the Middle East and the Muslim world the existence of the minaret is taken for granted. Sometimes square and stout as they are in North Africa, or tall, skinny and cylindrical as they are in Turkey and Eastern Europe, they are the symbol of the Muslim world. Yet their commonness leads people to take them for granted.

According to architecture historian Prof. Keppel A.C. Creswell, the minaret was first developed after the Umayyad dynasty (661-750) came in contact with church towers of the Syrian Orthodox Church. Photos of old Syriac churches show what appears to be a conical tower identical to a minaret. Creswell claimed that "having heard that the Jews used a horn and the Christians a naqus or clapper, [Muslims] wanted something equivalent for their own use."

The Umayyads also were the first to construct mosques atop or next to famous Christian and Jewish holy sites. In Damascus they turned the Church of St. John the Baptist into a mosque between 705 and 715. In 638 when Caliph Omar prayed near, but not in, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, he noted; "If I had prayed in the church it would have been lost to you, for the believers [Muslims] would have taken it saying: Omar prayed here." He was prescient, for the Mosque of Omar was eventually built directly opposite the 13th century entrance to the church. Also inJerusalem construction was begun on the Aksa Mosque in 690. It was constructed over what had been the Church of Our Lady and before that, the Jewish Temple's storehouse.

Further afield mosques were built atop the giant Hagia Sophia Church in Istanbul (then Constantinople) in the 15th century by the Ottomans and the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was constructed over the Temple of the Hindu god Ram in the 16th century by the Mughals in India. The Great Mosque of Gaza was built first in the 7th century atop a Byzantine church and then rebuilt in the 13th century atop a Crusader church.

THE MOSQUE and its minaret are symbols of power. The giant brick tower of Qutb Minar in Delhi is 72 meters high and until recent times was the world's tallest minaret. It was constructed by the sultans of Delhi to celebrate their victory and conquest of the city.

Even in more obscure locations, the building of minarets has served as an expression of power and influence. The center of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem has long been the Hurva Synagogue which was constructed and reconstructed several times between 1700 and the present. But attached to this great synagogue is a mosque whose minaret is intentionally taller than the Hurva's dome.

The America Colony Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah has a mosque next door to it. The Western Wall of Jerusalem has a mosque perched atop its northern end. The Mount of Olives Jewish graveyard has a mosque which adjoins it. Jeremiah's Grotto in eastJerusalem, which was for a long time a pilgrimage site, now obscured by the east Jerusalem central bus station, also has a mosque at its entrance. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem has a large mosque just across from it on Manger Square, constructed in a town which at the time was 80 percent Christian. A controversy over Muslim attempts to build a mosque next to the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth led to riots in 2002. In each of these cases the mosques were built after the non-Muslim building was constructed.

The building of mosques is not always an expression of power, but historically and today in mixed communities mosques are constructed with a view toward the non-Muslim other. This author is even familiar with a family of Palestinian communists in the West Bank where a mosque was, not coincidentally, constructed next door to their house.

It becomes blatantly obvious in a community like Sheikh Jarrah in east Jerusalem, where almost every other mosque is situated next to a Christian building or former holy site. The next time one sees a mosque, he should not take it for granted. Many of them have a history and geographicalplacement that is not coincidental and which serves as an expression of political Islam and its aspirations.»

A torre de uma igreja ortodoxa e um minarete na parte de Chipre ocupada pelos turcos.

Via Atlas Shrugs.

Minaretes enquanto símbolo de domínio

O referendo suíço trouxe para primeiro plano a questão dos minaretes. Sobre o objecto arquitectónico e o que representa, ler a Brill Encyclopedia of Islam citada por Andrew Bostom:
“It seems on the whole unrelated to its function of the adhān [q.v.] calling the faithful to prayer, which can be made quite adequately from the roof of the mosque or even from the house-top. During the lifetime of the Prophet, his Abyssinian slave Bilāl [q.v.], was responsible for making the call to prayer in this way. The practice continued for another generation, a fact which demonstrates that the minaret is not an essential part of Islamic ritual. To this day, certain Islamic communities, especially the most orthodox ones like the Wahhābīs in Arabia, avoid building minarets on the grounds that they are ostentatious and unnecessary. … It must be remembered, however, that throughout the mediaeval period, the role of the minaret oscillated between two polarities: as a sign of power and as an instrument for the adhān.”

[Re: Ottoman minarets]: “These gigantic, needle-sharp lances clustered protectively, like a guard of honour, around the royal dome, have a distinctly aggressive and ceremonial impact, largely dependent on their almost unprecedented proportions; the pair of minarets flanking the Süleymaniye dome are each some 70m. high.”

Par do Reino Unido alvejada com ovos

Uma muçulmana, par do Reino Unido, membro do partido conservador inglês, foi alvejada com ovos atirados por seguidores da religião da pás. Ver também a civilizada (mas não à maneira britânica) discussão entre a Baronesa Warsi e os seus correlegionários com vista a determinar quem representa o Islão. Lá na terrinha da abundância de fome, até se esfolam por um ovo. Via Vlad Tepes.

Conformidade com a sharia IX

A conformidade com a sharia consegue-se através do medo, mas também se compra. Na Bolívia, as funcionárias de um hospital construído com dinheiro iraniano têm que usar hijab. Essa condição foi-lhes imposta na entrevista de admissão. Entre ficar sem emprego e usar o hijab, as senhoras terão escolhido cobrir-se, o que se compreende. Agora, também compreensivelmente, sentem-se ultrajadas.
Imagem da inauguração do hospital.
Via Bivouac-ID.

Povo suíço proíbe minaretes (4)

Soeren Kern, no Pajamas Media, numa peça anterior ao referendo, relata as circunstâncias que levaram à sua convocação:
«(...) The current controversy dates back to 2005, when the Turkish cultural association in Wangen bei Olten, a small town of some 4,500 people in northern Switzerland, applied for a permit to erect a 6-meter (20 feet) high minaret on the roof of its Islamic community center. The project to build the minaret, which was opposed by the majority of local residents, was roundly rejected by the town’s building and planning commission. But the Turkish cultural association appealed the decision, claiming that the local building authorities were motivated by religious bias. The case eventually made its way to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that the project could proceed apace. The minaret was finally erected in July 2009. Up until recently, Muslims living in Switzerland had mostly been keeping a low profile, preferring to practice their religion discretely in nondescript mosques. But over the past several years the number of mosques has mushroomed; there now are some 200 mosques and up to 1,000 prayer rooms dotted around the country. And although only four of those have minarets (plans to build a half-dozen more minarets are currently pending approval), observers say the minarets symbolize the growing self-confidence of Switzerland’s Muslim community. (...)»
À medida que a população muçulmana cresce, vai fazendo mais exigências. E porque será que os suíços vêem os minaretes como símbolos do avanço do Islão? Porque os muçulmanos os consideram isso mesmo:
«(...) Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (...) once implied that the construction of mosques and minarets is part of a strategy for the Islamization of Europe. The pro-Islamic Erdogan said: “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.” (...)»
Aí está: os suíços fizeram aquilo que os restantes europeus e os americanos se recusam a fazer: levar a sério o que os próprios muçulmanos dizem e fazem.

Povo suíço proíbe minaretes (3)

Reacção do comité Egerkinger, promotor do referendo:

«The Egerkinger Commitee who launched the minaret ban initiative, welcomes the vote in favour of a minaret ban by the Swiss Sovereign. It was decided, that no further minarets are to be build in Switzerland. And the call of the muezzin is not to be heard. With the “Yes!” to a ban on minarets the people confirmed that Swiss Law also applies to all immigrants without any curtailments. And any attempt to implement parts of sharia law in Switzerland has thereby been uncompromisingly rejected. Forced marriages – also if carried out during a stay on foreign ground – have no validity for persons with legal residence in Switzerland. And the same applies to other elements of sharia. The basic rights of freedom which are mandatory in Switzerland have been consolidated. The “Yes!” to the minaret ban by the Swiss sovereign – our highest political entity – is now to be implemented in its exact wording. The Professorial ideas about undermining its actual implementation by filing a complaint to the European Courts of Justice, which were aired during the campaign, are unacceptable and a breach of constitutional law. Officials of the law, who are reluctant to enforce the expressed will of the Swiss Sovereign are to be discharged. The Egerkinger Commitee observes with content that the public debate about the minaret ban – contrary to all the biased doomsaying of the opposition – has been passionate indeed, but orderly and our direct democracy worthy. The ones who went out of line, were the people who attempted to halt free speech regarding the issue, at times even through use of illicit means. The role played by church-officials during the debate has been alarming. The neglect of their duty to counter the persecution of Christians especially in muslim lands, stands in disquieting contrast to their hasty partisanship against a ban on minarets The Egerkinger Commitee Walter Wobmann, National Council of Switzerland Dr. Ulrich Schüler, National Council of Switzerland 29. November 2009 (Many many thanks for the Translation: Frank Kitman)»

Notável a clareza e a lucidez do comunicado. Uma lástima a posição da Igreja, que continua a negar a sabedoria acumulada durante séculos de confronto com o Islão. Via Vlad Tepes.

Povo suíço proíbe minaretes (2)

Algumas reacções ao resultado do referendo suíço que ditou a proibição da construção de minaretes nas mesquitas da Suiça recolhidas pelo blogue Islam in Europe. Via Muslims Against Sharia.

29.11.09

Povo suíço proíbe minaretes

Cerca de 57% dos suíços decidiram em referendo proibir a construção de minaretes nas mesquitas do país. O povo decidiu contra a classe política, contra o politicamente correcto, contra o medo de parecer retrógrado e ultramontano, contra o medo de represálias, tudo boas razões (para além da questão dos minaretes em si mesma) para votar no sentido em que os suíços o fizeram. Estarão os suíços a voltar-se contra os princípios que professam defender, ao limitar a liberdade dos muçulmanos de construir templos ao modo que querem? Será isso uma violação da liberdade religiosa? Pode ser, mas há princípios que as pessoas devem respeitar antes de deles quererem usufruir. Concretamente, os muçulmanos sabem que a sua religião e os estados que por ela se orientam não reconhecem aos cristãos e aos judeus o direito à plena liberdade religiosa, nem o direito à plena cidadania, já para não falar dos politeístas e dos ateus, que são ainda mais mal tratados. Num quadro destes, como pode um muçulmano reclamar o direito a usufruir da mesma liberdade que a sua religião, mais amplamente a sua civilização, não reconhece aos outros? Como outros já observaram, esperemos que este referendo constitua o ponto de viragem da islamização da Europa, que seja uma afirmação da vontade dos povos europeus de defender a sua civilização e a sua cultura, que seja o estabelecer de um limite a partir do qual o Islão não há-de passar. Viva a Suíça! Ver Princípio da Reciprocidade e Princípio da Reciprocidade - adenda e Liberdade Religiosa.

The History of Political Correctness - Video

The History of Political Correctness ou do Marxismo Cultural. Muito instrutivo para perceber, para além do politicamente correcto, o multiculturalismo, o relativismo, os estudos de género, os estudos raciais, os revisionismos históricos à volta do imperialismo, do colonialismo e das religiões, os estudos raciais, a revolução sexual, em suma, os agentes corruptores da cultura ocidental.

Eid-al-Adha: Festa do Sacrifício

Eid-al-Adha: Festa do Sacrifício, hoje, um pouco por todo o mundo e também na Europa, com o beneplácito dos nossos dirigentes políticos, mesmo dos que têm fama de ser recalcitrantes ao Islão.
Aïd el KebirAïd el Kebir Aïd el KebirAïd el Kebir Aïd el KebirAïd el Kebir Aïd el KebirAïd el Kebir Aïd el KebirAïd el Kebir
Via Bivouac-ID.

26.11.09

Sands of Passion: Episódio 3

Já que a cimitarra pende sobre a nossa cabeça e não parecemos muito interessados em defender a nossa civilização, a nossa cultura, os nosso países, as nossas famílias, os nossos pescoços, mais vale rirmo-nos de tudo isto. Via Tundra Tabloids.

Videoteca do Islamismo: lapidação (addendum)

O leitor Manuel da Fonseca chamou a minha atenção para uma incorrecção gravíssima do postal anterior e que é a seguinte: a lapidação registada no video que entretanto removi, por razões que ficarão claras, foi perpetrada por uma turba de curdos de religião yazidi. A violenta ocorrência registada no video não tem como base a prática islâmica de lapidar os adúlteros descrita no texto do postal, o qual mantenho integralmente. O acontecimento parece ter circulado pela internet em 2007 e está descrito na Wikipedia, sabendo-se inclusive o nome da vítima. Peço desculpa aos leitores induzidos em erro. A ressalva feita na primeira frase do postal devia ter-me levado a ser mais cauteloso antes de publicar o video no contexto em que o fiz, nomeadamente tentando descobrir mais pormenores sobre ele. Considero a publicação do video perfeitamente legítima, até desejável, como demonstração de que as culturas não são todas iguais, por exemplo, numa Videoteca do Multiculturalismo, mas não do Islamismo, que já tem tantos crimes na folha de serviços que se torna desnecessário atribuir-lhe outros pelos quais não é responsável.

25.11.09

Videoteca do Islamismo: lapidação.

Lapidação, aparentemente mortal, de uma mulher. Não disponho de informações sobre o local, nem sobre a vítima e o crime que terá cometido, nem sobre responsáveis pelo seu linchamento. Recordo que a lapidação é o castigo aplicado aos adúlteros no Islão, de acordo com as prescrições recolhidas nas ahadith, ou seja, nos relatos dos ditos e feitos do profeta Mafoma. A prescrição corânica determina a flagelação com cem vergastadas (Corão 24,2), mas a hadith de Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 8, Livro 82, Versículo 816) relata o seu uso na presença e com a aprovação de Mafoma, e deplora o risco da sua aplicação cair em desuso, dado que nenhum versículo corânico a prescreve, exortando os muçulmanos a zelar pela continuidade da sua aplicação.
Video removido pelo autor do blogue. Veja o postal seguinte.
Agradeço o video ao leitor ejsantos.

24.11.09

Eurábia: antevisão (2)

«(...) [A] town of 6500 in Denmark called Tingbjerg is dramatically changing due to high Muslim immigration and birthrate. The report says that residents are complaining that many Muslims are not assimilating and are changing Danish society.

"As the neighborhood has become increasingly Muslim, it's also been increasingly plagued by gang violence, burglaries, car-burnings, vandalism, and other offenses," the report says. "Over the years, the members of Tingbjerg's non-Muslim minority have come to feel increasingly vulnerable and ill at ease in their community."

The homosexual pastor of a church in Tingjerg fled the town this month due to persecution from Muslim youth. His church has been repeatedly vandalized and broken into, and his personal property has been stolen. The church is now for sale.

Two journalists from Denmark's TV-2 station tried to do a story on the church and were threatened by two Muslims who demanded that they delete the tape because they did not want to be seen on TV. The two then smashed the windows of the station's van.

The TV station also ran a letter from one resident describing how they had seen Muslim youth set a dumpsters and buildings on fire and carried wagons of stones to attack those who tried to stop them. The resident claimed that the local police initially failed to stop their crimes because of the stones and had to come back "dressed for combat."»

Via Muslims Against Sharia.

Turquia: império islâmico

A Zenit reproduz as seguintes palavras do bispo de Sarajevo, cardeal Vinko Puljić:
«(...) “No final de Outubro, o ministro do Exterior turco, Ahmet Davutoglu, disse em Sarajevo que o objectivo da política turca é o novo surgimento do império otomano nos Balcãs, como no século XVI (...).»
Ninguém viu, ninguém ouviu, ninguém fez caso. Os inimigos do Ocidente não se inibem de expressar as suas intenções imperialistas e totalitárias, sabendo que os ocidentais estão paralisados pelo relativismo, pelo multiculturalismo e pelo politicamente correcto. Tudo isto nos impede de ver o perigo que se concentra sobre as nossas cabeças, contra todas as evidências, inclusive a profissão de intenções dos nossos futuros algozes.

23.11.09

Infiltração jihadista (17)

O Sr. Choudary comenta o atentado terrorista de Fort Hood. Via Vlad Tepes.

Disposição para o martírio

Boas notícias sobre as cristãs iranianas presas por apostasia. Organizações de defesa dos direitos humanos (propriamente ditos) afirmam que a libertação se deveu à pressão internacional:
«(...) [Two Iranian women jailed for no other reason than being Christian were released from a Tehran prison today.

Maryam Rustampoor, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 30, were imprisoned for 259 days – since March 5. They were repeatedly told to recant their faith and that they would be executed as "apostates," solely because they are Christians.

But now Open Doors USA has confirmed the women have been released from the notorious Evin prison with no bail, a rarity for Christians released from prison in Iran.

(...)

Compass Direct News noted that the women may still face charges of proselytizing and "apostasy," or leaving Islam.

An Iranian source told Compass the Iranian government faced intense public pressure for imprisoning the women.

"It was from the international pressure, and also the government couldn't handle it anymore," said the source. "Already their detention was illegal. At the same time, the government wasn't ready to prosecute them for apostasy. They already have many headaches. They cannot handle everything."

(...)

As WND reported, Rustampoor and Amirizadeh appeared before a court in Iran and were charged with "crimes of apostasy, and propagation of the Christian faith." In a display of raw courage, they told a government prosecutor that not only are they Christian, it is up to God, not a bureaucrat, to whom He talks.

(...)

According to Elam, a dramatic part of the hearing came when they refused to deny their Christian faith.

They explained that God had convicted them through the Holy Spirit.

"It is impossible for God to speak with humans," Haddad, a deputy prosecutor identified only by his surname, stated.

"Are you questioning whether God is Almighty?" Amirizadeh asked him.

To which Haddad then replied. "You are not worthy for God to speak to you."

"It is God, and not you, who determines if I am worthy," she said.

Haddad earlier had asked if the women were Christian.

"We love Jesus," they replied.

"You were Muslims and now you have become Christians," Haddad stated.

"We were born in Muslim families, but we were not Muslims," the women said.

The deputy prosecutor asked about their regrets, and they said, "We have no regrets."

"You should renounce your faith verbally and in written form," he warned.

They refused.

(...)

Under Shariah law, the penalty for apostasy often is death or life imprisonment. According to reports about the punishment system within Iran, for women the execution often is preceded by rape. (...)»

Via Jihad Watch.

22.11.09

Padre ortodoxo russo assassinado em Moscovo

«The Rev. Daniil Sysoyev, a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church who was known for promoting missionary work among Muslims, was shot and killed in his parish church late Thursday night, the RIA Novosti news agency reported. (...) A Moscow Patriarchate official called Father Sysoyev a “talented missionary” whose work among Muslims, including Tatars, might have been the motive for the shooting. (...) Father Sysoyev had spoken out in opposition to Islam and had warned Russian women against marrying Muslim men. Anatoly Bagmet, an official of the prosecutor’s office, said there was reason to believe that the shooting took place “on religious grounds,” the news agency reported.

Kirill Frolov, a prominent Orthodox missionary activist, said that Father Sysoyev had said that he had been receiving threats for several years. “Over the course of two, three years Father Daniil, who was famous for his active missionary work, periodically received e-mails stating that if he didn’t stop his theological polemics with Islam, then he will be dealt with like an infidel,” Mr. Frolov told the Interfax news agency. (...) Officials of the Russian Orthodox Church have complained in recent years about violence directed against churches and priests.»

20.11.09

Eurabia: antevisão

In Zenit:
«O imenso patrimônio religioso, histórico, artístico e cultural do cristianismo ortodoxo em Kosovo corre perigo se a comunidade internacional não garantir o Estado de direito, denuncia a Igreja ortodoxa da Sérvia.

O bispo Teodosije Sibalic, abade do mosteiro ortodoxo sérvio de Visoki Dečani, lançou um alerta lido no dia 17 de novembro, durante um evento na Câmara dos Deputados da Itália (...).

“A nossa região é de maioria muçulmana. Passados dez anos do fim da guerra civil, e apesar da chegada das forças de paz da OTAN, a verdadeira paz e liberdade para a comunidade cristã ortodoxa ainda não chegou, afirma.

A presença na região de um elevado número de igrejas e mosteiros faz que Kosovo tenha grande importância para a Igreja ortodoxa sérvia.

(...)

[S]ó no recente período desde o fim da guerra, foram destruídas ou gravemente danificadas na região –pelos extremistas kosovares albaneses– 150 igrejas e mosteiros, entre eles lugares medievais de importância mundial.

"Geograficamente –afirma o abade–, Kosovo forma parte da Europa, mas é difícil imaginar um futuro europeu para esta região se continuarem as violações dos direitos religiosos, civis e humanos da comunidade ortodoxa cristã e a destruição de monumentos medievais símbolos de nossa espiritualidade e cultura”.

(...)

“Os países europeus –assinalou Sibalic– devem insistir com maior força para que o respeito da lei e da ordem e o cumprimento dos valores democráticos representem os critérios principais de seu apoio político.” (...)»

19.11.09

Conformidade com a sharia VIII

Pamela Geller, autora do blogue Atlas Shrugs, analisa no American Thinker a reacção da América ao ataque terrorista de Fort Hood e não hesita: os americanos estão a obedecer à sharia:
«(...) I have watched in abject horror the elites' stunning reaction to this act of war. The denial, the submission, the excuses, the dodging, the self-flagellation, the shame -- the deceiving of the American people by the media, the military, society, law enforcement, authorities and politicians, all the way up to and including the White House -- amounts to the enforcement of Shariah law. Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are. We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law. We will not insult Islam -- that is Shariah law. We self-censor -- that is Shariah law. We disrespect ourselves and our nation so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude. We should be raging; we should be outraged. We should be strategizing for this worldwide conflict. (...)»

Lapidação explicada às criancinhas

acompanhada de uma versão para os papás: Hadith Sahih Muslim, Livro 17, nº 4207. Via Bivouac-ID.

17.11.09

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar (3)

Infiltração jihadista (16)

Obama recusa colaborar com a investigação do Congresso ao massacre de Fort Hood.
«The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration "declined to provide any" such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing (...).

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.»
O título deste postal não se refere a Nidal Hasan, mas ao próprio presidente dos EUA. Via Hot Air.

16.11.09

Conformidade com a sharia VII

A polícia canadiana pede desculpa aos muçulmanos por um agente de sexo masculino ter revistado uma mulher na acção de detenção do seu marido:
«Windsor Police Chief Gary Smith publicly apologized to the Muslim community this week after one of his officers allegedly patted down the wife of a suspect during a raid tied to a case in metro Detroit that ended in the shooting death of an Islamic leader. “The actions taken did cause embarrassment and did offend their religious beliefs,” Smith said in a statement. “I sincerely apologize to the families and the Islamic community.” (...) Khan’s wife, Hiba Khan, was patted down by a male Windsor police officer during the raid, said Patrick Ducharme, the lawyer for the two suspects. Ducharme welcomed Smith’s apology. (...)

Ducharme said he was on the phone with Hiba Khan as officers were in their home during the raid.

“She said, ‘He’s going down my body with his hands’’’ on the outside of her clothing, Ducharme said.

Ducharme said that the pat down was unnecessary because Hiba was not being arrested. He added that if a patdown is to happen on a woman, a woman police officer should do it, especially if the subject is Muslim. Some Muslim women say their religion doesn’t allow them to make physical contact with men outside their family.

”This is not just about Muslim women,” he said. “This is about all women. They should not be searched by an officer of the same sex.” A police union official told reporters that the officers involved in the raid acted appropriately, according to Canadian media reports. (...)»
No Tundra Tabloids comenta-se o caso do seguinte modo:
«This is a classic case of Islamic values, specifically, sharia law, being accepted by non-Muslims. It's clear that the police officer did nothing wrong, but yet, the Windsor police chief is offering an apology for the proper conduct of one of his police officers. (...) It should never have been a question as to whether the officer acted properly "in this circumstance", because under the law, all people are to be treated in the exact same manner, there is no special treatment for particular groups. (...) This is a prime example of sharia based principles being accepted by non-Muslim law enforcement officials in the West, and it needs to be rebuked and condemned in no uncertain terms. The Windsor Chief of Police should be forced to take back his apology and insist that his police officers acted correctly and will continue to frisk all suspects regardless of gender.»
A conformidade voluntária com a sharia é um dos sinais mais evidentes de que o Ocidente está a ceder à ofensiva islâmica e de que o efeito pretendido da jihad - instilar o medo no coração dos infiéis - está a ser plenamente alcançado.

Alta traição (2)

Sobre a decisão de julgar Khakid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil:

«''This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.

No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

(...) KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden (...) could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

(...)

KSM's lawyers will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.»
Via The Corner.

Alta traição

Em artigo na National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy reexpõe a sua tese, já defendida em postal anterior, mas explicitada com mais riqueza de pormenores e clareza de argumentos (no fundo, a diferença entre um postal num blogue e um artigo numa revista de referência).
«The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious. The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. (...) The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial. That is, Pres. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian “defendants,” these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history. This is exactly what President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen. (...)»
A decisão de julgar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed em processo civil, ao criar condições para a divulgação pública de informação dos serviços secretos, colocando em risco toda a sua estrutura operacional, configura um crime de alta traição: Obama e companhia preparam-se para pôr à disposição dos terroristas presos e dos seus representantes legais informação confidencial e crítica para a defesa face à ameaça terrorista. Para além disso, põe a anterior administração no banco dos réus. Obama mata dois coelhos com uma cajadada. Ganha o terrorismo islâmico e alegra-se a esquerda progressista e suicida. Perde a segurança dos EUA e do mundo.

15.11.09

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar (2)

E, ao que consta, nem o fez convenientemente. Para além do mais, o Imperador não retribuiu o cumprimento, o que já havia ocorrido com o Rei da Arábia Saudita. Tem o que merece.

Sim, insensatos são todos aqueles homens em que se instalou a ignorância de Deus

Livro de Sabedoria 13,1-9. «Sim, insensatos são todos aqueles homens em que se instalou a ignorância de Deus e que, a partir dos bens visíveis, não foram capazes de descobrir aquele que é, nem, considerando as obras, reconheceram o Artífice. Antes foi o fogo, o vento ou o ar subtil, a abóbada estrelada, ou a água impetuosa, ou os luzeiros do céu que tomaram por deuses, governadores do mundo. Se, fascinados pela sua beleza, os tomaram por deuses, aprendam quão mais belo que tudo é o Senhor, pois foi o próprio autor da beleza que os criou. E se os impressionou a sua força e o seu poder, compreendam quão mais poderoso é aquele que os criou, pois na grandeza e na beleza das criaturas se contempla, por analogia, o seu Criador. Estes, contudo, merecem só uma leve censura porque talvez se extraviem, apenas por buscarem Deus e quererem encontrá-lo. Movendo-se no meio das suas obras, investigam-nas, mas deixam-se seduzir pela aparência, pois são belas as coisas que vêem. De qualquer modo, nem sequer estes são desculpáveis, porque, se tiveram tanta capacidade para poderem perscrutar o universo, como não descobriram, primeiro, o Senhor dessas coisas?»

14.11.09

Vlad Tepes

Apenas para divulgar mais um par de sites anti-islamização do Ocidente:

Mudança na qual podemos acreditar

Obama volta a quebrar um protocolo com 233 anos e faz uma vénia ao Imperador do Japão. No Hot Air, Ed Morrissey comenta:
«(...) American Presidents do not bow to royalty. In fact, heads of state do not bow or genuflect to each other in the normal course of diplomacy. At least, they didn’t until this amateur came into office and failed to learn from the first time he did it. (...)»
Obama parece inclinar-se a demonstrar subserviência perante a aristocracia mundial. Recorde-se a vénia ao rei da Arábia Saudita, que teve a agravante de ser feita ao chefe de estado de um regime islamita totalitário, opressor, onde as mulheres são cidadãos de segunda, assim como os não-muçulmanos que não têm liberdade religiosa. Com esta vénia, estes gestos podem ser interpretados como acções concretas de Obama para mostrar respeito no contexto da estratégia diplomática que tem implementado de assumir uma atitude expiatória dos supostos crimes americanos da história, narrativa tão ao gosto do progressismo esquerdista. Seja como for, uma desgraça.

KSM será julgado em processo civil

A decisão do Department of Justice norte-americano de julgar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, o suposto cérebro por trás do planeamento do ataque de 11 de Setembro, num processo civil deixou metade dos EUA perplexos. Para começar a perceber porquê, pode ler-se Andrew MaCarthy:

«(...) Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.»

Eu apenas acrescentaria, para já, que julgar KSM num tribunal de guerra corresponderia a reconhecer que o ataque de 11 de Setembro foi um acto de guerra contra os EUA. Obama não se quer associar a essa tese, sustentada por George W. Bush.

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood (4)

Como pude ser tão ingénuo? Onde eu vi o reconhecimento de um motivação religiosa, vejo agora justamente a sua negação! Agradeço a Andrew McCarthy e prometo não voltar a precipitar-me a elogiar algo que Obama diga. Acontece que as minhas expectativas em relação a Obama são tão baixas que qualquer coisa que se revista de uma aparente razoabilidade me leva a elogiá-lo.

«Still Willfully Blind

President Obama at Fort Hood today: "It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know — no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

Really?

At his blog today, Andrew Bostom, a scholar of jihadism, cites the following passage from "Reliance of the Traveler," a widely distributed manual of Islamic law produced by al-Azhar University in Egypt, the most authoritative interpreters of theology and sharia jurisprudence in Sunni Islam, the dominant tradition among the world's Muslims:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216); “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89); “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah”; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, “To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

As Dr. Bostom points out, the first hadith referred to in the passage — the one in which Mohammed explains that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight non-Muslims — was cited by Nidal Hasan in slide 43 of the June 7, 2007 presentation that Jonah discusses in his excellent column today.

Not to beat a dead horse on this, but in 2001, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an al-Azhar graduated doctor of Islamic jurisprudence who is the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood and the most influential Sunni cleric in the world, issued a fatwa approving suicide bombings against Israel. In 2003, with the male jihadists being caught too often before they could strike, Qaradawi expanded the fatwa to approve suicide bombings by women. In 2004, he issued a fatwa calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq, and later expanded this authorization to include the killing of American civilian support personnel. (As Qaradawi put it: "All of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers, and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately.")

(...) It doesn't matter what President Obama thinks about faith; his obligation is to acknowledge and act on what others understand their faith to compel — even if the president finds that horrifying to contemplate.

After the carnage we've seen for two decades, and the high religious authorities that have endorsed it, it is simply astounding that an American president — at a solemn memorial service for soldiers killed just days ago by a jihadist acting on his rational, broadly accepted understanding of his religious duty — could claim that "no faith justifies" sneak-attack murders, and that no religion teaches that "God looks upon them with favor." In fact, a widely held interpretation of Islam holds exactly these principles. No one is saying that all Muslims follow Hasan's construction of Islam, but hundreds of millions do and they have scriptures to back up their beliefs — scriptures we could all read if we'd just pull our heads out of the sand.

To deny that is to deny reality. A country can't be protected by people who lack the will to face reality.»

13.11.09

Os mesmos erros, os mesmos resultados

Andrew McCarthy analisa, no National Review Online, o comportamento das autoridades policiais americanas que, conhecedoras dos contactos de Nadil Hassan, o autor do antentado de Fort Hood, com Anwar al-Awlaki, imã radical, guia espiritual de dois dos terroristas do 11 de Setembro, não consideraram importante vigiar Hassan mais de perto. A decisão de não investigar Hassan ter-se-á baseado numa suposta impossibilidade de processar alguém por incitamento à violência, o que McCarthy desmente; numa interpretação sui generis do Primeiro Aditamento à Constituição Americana, o qual protege a liberdade de expressão; e por se considerar que um religioso não pode ser acusado por um crime cujo incitamento tenha sido feito no exercício da liberdade religiosa.
«September 10 America.” The phrase signifies a reprise of the “terrorism is just a crime” mindset that reigned in the years before the 9/11 attacks. Like other observers, I’ve groused in recent months that we are back to that self-destructive ethos. I was wrong. If the Fort Hood atrocity tells us anything, it is that things are much worse than they were before 9/11. For one thing, 9/11 has happened. Before it did, perhaps we had an excuse. But we’ve experienced the wages of consciously avoiding Islamism. To have retreated into puerile fantasies about a religion of peace is, at this juncture, unfathomable. (...) In 1995 (...) I led the team that convicted Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh.” In essence, we prosecuted him for inciting terrorism­ (...). Specifically, the Blind Sheikh was convicted of (among other things) soliciting an attack against a U.S. military installation (like Hasan just committed) and soliciting the murder of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. (...) How was the Blind Sheikh convicted? By presenting to the jury his fiery sermons and private meetings with the faithful, often in mosques where he urged barbarous strikes against America, swaddled in accurate quotations of the Koran and other Muslim scripture. Of course, he claimed that such exhortations were protected speech. (...) the Blind Sheikh contended that his incitements to terror were beyond prosecution because he was practicing his religion: Specifically, he claimed he had simply been performing the traditional role of an Islamic cleric called on to determine whether proposed courses of conduct (in this instance, mass-murder plots) were permissible under Islamic law. Fourteen years ago, that contention was properly seen as frivolous. In America, we are not under sharia law — not yet. There is no religious exception for violent acts, conspiracies, and incitements to violence that violate American law. So what has happened? Why did we know these rudimentary, commonsense principles in the Nineties but not now? Because incitement explodes the government’s “religion of peace” narrative. The incitement to Islamist terror is Islamic scripture. The Blind Shiekh was not a hypnotist or a particularly compelling speaker. His authority over terrorist organizations was rooted exclusively in his acknowledged mastery of sharia. Islamic scripture was the source of his power over Muslims. To concede this would be to concede the obvious but unspeakable fact that there is a nexus between Islam and terror. That would harpoon the lovey-dovey dream that Islam and Western democracy are perfectly compatible. It would upset Muslims — especially the well-organized, deep-pocketed Islamic grievance industry. Today’s hip, progressive FBI, like Gen. George Casey’s modern, slavishly “diverse” military, doesn’t want to upset Muslims. Besides souring State Department cocktail parties and drying up funding for presidential libraries, upsetting Muslims would put a damper on our government’s lavish “Islamic outreach” efforts. (...) (...) [B]e prepared for more Fort Hoods. We’re not in September 10 America. We’ve managed to land in a much more dangerous place.»
A América a ceder ao relativismo cultural, ao multiculturalismo e à ideologia do politicamente correcto. Na semana em que comemorámos o derrube do muro de Berlim, assistimos, no rescaldo do atentado de Fort Hood - concretamente, na cobertura noticiosa e na análise do ocorrido pelos media e pelos políticos progressistas norte-americanos -, ao triunfo da mais corrosiva forma de marxismo: o marxismo cultural, que destrói as fundações da cultura ocidental e que deixa o Ocidente vulnerável a qualquer ameaça consistente com que se depare. Uma coisa que os progressistas ainda não perceberam é que o vazio de valores que se seguirá à destruição da cultura ocidental - porque os valores que têm para propor, como alternativa, são isso mesmo: vazio - será preenchido por outros valores, defendidos com convicção pelos islamistas.

Outros muros

Por que razão não se manifestam contra estes outros muros os que se manifestam contra o muro que separa Israel dos territórios habitados por muitos indivíduos que lhe são hostis? Melanie Phillips resume o artigo de Shiraz Maher no seu blogue na Standpoint, do qual destaco as seguintes passagens:
«(...) Of course, the one [muro] we've all heard about is the Israeli security fence which attracted fierce criticism after its construction in 2003. Built in response to the Palestinian intifada which claimed more than 900 lives since September 2000, the fence has dramatically halted the number of terrorist attacks inside the country. (...)[Y]ou could be mistaken for thinking that Israel's decision to defend itself in this way was unprecedented. Yet, not only is this wrong but, ironically, a lot of the physical barriers currently in place are located in the ‘Muslim world'. The Saudi-Yemeni border is just one place where a physical barrier is used by a Muslim regime to defend itself against ‘smuggling' and ‘terrorism'. (...)

Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen has always been problematic, providing a trafficking route for weapons smuggling. Indeed, the explosives used in the 2003 Riyadh bombings which targeted compounds housing western expatriates were blamed on Yemeni smugglers. It was not the first time Saudi Arabia blamed the Yemenis for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Yemeni smugglers are also believed to have helped facilitate the bombing campaign against US military bases in the mid-1990s.

Once the Saudi government lost confidence in Yemen's ability to curb domestic terrorism, they decided to build a physical barrier. Much of it runs through contested territory. According to the 2000 Jeddah border treaty between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a demilitarised ‘buffer zone' should exist between both countries, protecting the rights of nomadic Bedouin tribes which live in the cross-border area.

Yet, parts of the Saudi barrier stand inside the demilitarised zone, violating the 2000 agreement and infuriating Yemen. (...) (...) More recently, Saudi Arabia has also built a physical barrier along its border with Iraq to stop jihadists from the Kingdom going over to join the mujahideen. Talal Anqawi hailed it a major success saying that cross-border incursions had dropped by up to 40%. (...)»
Mas há mais!
«(...) Beyond the Middle East, Iran's 900 km border with Pakistan is currently being replaced by a concrete wall (10 feet high, 3 feet thick), fortified with steel rods. Ostensibly built to thwart drug traffickers and terrorists, the local Baloch people oppose its construction as it cuts across their land and separates communities living on either side of the divide. The opposition leader of Balochistan's Provincial Assembley, Kachkol Ali, has bitterly opposed the wall saying his people were never consulted about it and that it cuts off families from one another. (...)»
E ainda:
«(...) In the Western Sahara desert Morocco has built a massive wall, spanning more than 2700 km. Its primary aim is to guard against Sahrawi separatists who organised themselves into the Polisario Front - a political and terrorist movement - which seeks independence for the Sahrawi people. Much of the wall is lined with barbed wire and landmines, which is something it shares in common with parts of the Pakistan-Indian border (particularly in Kashmir). (...)»
Porque será que nunca ouvi falar destes muros? Haverá alguma obsessão dos media com o muro israelita e uma intenção de branquear semelhantes estruturas noutros países? Maher tem dedicado os seus últimos postais ao já nosso conhecido Anwar al-Awlaki , mais concretamente aos que o apoiam no Reino Unido, que merecem a atenção de todos os que se preocupam com estas questões.

Muslims Against Sharia

No movimento anti-jihad é frequente dizer-se que as primeiras vítimas do Islamismo são os próprios muçulmanos. Já aqui fizemos referência a alguns sites de ex-muçulmanos que resolveram manifestar publicamente a sua aversão ao Islamismo e a sua disposição para se lhe opor. Os seus autores converteram-se a outras religiões ou, simplesmente, perderam a fé. Há também outros que continuam a considerar-se muçulmanos mas que se opõem decidida e veementemente ao Islamismo, à jihad, à sharia e a outros traços do Islamismo, movimento que ameaça o Ocidente e fustiga os países muçulmanos por todo o mundo. Refiro-me ao Muslims Against Sharia. No seu blogue desenvolvem uma intensa actividade de cobertura das notícias relacionadas com a expansão do Islamismo em todo o mundo e contra isso tomam posição. A seguir.

12.11.09

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood (3)

Richard Fernandez, no Pajamas Media, escreve o discurso que, na sua opinião, Obama devia ter proferido nas exéquias das vítimas do atentado terrorista de Fort Hood:
«First of all, I would like to apologize, as Commander in Chief and on behalf of the entire chain of command, for failing to protect the men who were shot here some days ago. The specific shortcomings which allowed the shooter the opportunity to commit this crime will determined and rectified forthwith. That is the least I can do for those who died. (...) The leadership owes you the best equipment, the finest intelligence and the most competent leadership. But above all we owe you our loyalty and the assurance that everyone placed above you and alongside you wearing the uniform of the United States is someone you could trust implicitly with your life. Because there would be times when you would have to. And in that duty we have failed. For reasons which brook no excuse, whether from lack of competence or the absence of professional courage, we have allowed a traitor to gain a position of trust in your midst. We gave him high rank. We gave him the prerogatives and honors due to a member of the medical profession and an officer in the Armed Forces. And he used that position to kill the men we are remembering today. We who demand of you the courage to routinely risk your lives in the service of our nation did not ourselves have fortitude to expel a man from the service who by rights should have been gone because we feared criticism. We feared being accused of bigotry. We feared being accused of persecuting a religion. We feared the bad publicity that would come from recognizing the danger signals which have all too tragically culminated in this. It was out of fear that we forbore and men died. Let me repeat my apology. By command responsibility the onus of this falls on my shoulders. And the duty for correcting the defects falls on me as well. Already there are those who say “this was an ordinary crime”; or that we do not know what motivated this killer to commit the crime he did. We must not add dishonesty to dereliction. We know. If we were not men enough to do our duty then, then at least we should do it now. Let me pledge that from this day forward, no officer in the Armed Forces, no member of law enforcement, no man or woman in authority should ever dare ignore a danger to you, my men — for you are my men — out of fear of giving offense. Political correctness should fall distant second to duty, honor and country.

I cannot bring back the dead. But I can prevent others from following in their tragic place. Others will eulogize the fallen. They will recall this young life or that promising future cut short on that day. Let others speak of the nobility of those who died on this post. Let others comfort the parents and loved ones of those who will wait at the door for the knock they once heard and hear nevermore. That is not for me to do.

Rather let my deeds from this day speak more eloquently than tributes or flowers. Let my determination to prevent this from ever happening again be my peroration and my tribute to the fallen. Gesta, non verba is all the Latin I need to know. Deeds, not words. I will return to my duties and you to yours. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.»

Grande discurso este, de longe superior ao que Obama proferiu. Que sociedade é esta em que os grandes discursos, feitos nas grandes ocasiões, são virtuais e os reais são peças de campanha eleitoral?