Sarrazin pressionado a demitir-se

Tocou no tabu: a influência perversa da emigração muçulmana na Alemanha. Não se esperava outro desenlace. Entretanto, diversas sondagens revelam que grande parte da sociedade alemã concorda com ele, o que já obrigou alguns políticos a moderar as críticas que inicialmente lhe dirigiram. Algo me diz que nos próximos tempos havemos de voltar a ouvir falar de Sarrazin.

Ler, a este respeito, esta entrada do Jihad Watch.

Amplify’d from http://www.minutodigital.com/noticias/2010/09/10/thilo-sarrazin-obligado-a-dimitir-del-bundesbank/

El directivo del Bundesbank Thilo Sarrazin ha presentado su dimisión ante el presidente del banco central alemán, después de verse envuelto en polémica por criticar en unas declaraciones a inmigrantes .

“Sarrazin ha pedido al presidente que le releve de sus funciones”, explica en un comunicado el Bundesbank, cuya junta directiva había pedido hace una semana por unanimidad el cese del polémico economista. Su salida definitiva del cargo tendría lugar el próximo 30 de septiembre, según explica el periódio ‘Der Spiegel’.

Sarrazin, antiguo responsable de finanzas de la ciudad de Berlín, fue relevado de algunas de sus funciones en el Bundesbank el año pasado por decir que los turcos y los árabes exprimen al Estado, no se integran y “no hacen otra cosa que producir niñas con velo”. Recientemente ha hecho comentarios como que los musulmanes están reduciendo el coeficiente intelectual de la sociedad alemana. Read more at www.minutodigital.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a4iu

Proibição da blasfémia

Outro efeito perverso da infeliz ideia de queimar o Alcorão é servir de argumento para os hipersensíveis muçulmanos, sempre tão susceptíveis de ser ofendidos e de reagir violentamente às supostas ofensas, voltarem à carga a fim de aprovar leis internacionais que criminalizem as "ofensas às religiões". (Chega a ser comovente esta preocupação dos muçulmanos com "as religiões" dos outros, aquelas cujos livros sagrados afirmam estar adulterados, cujos templos persistem em destruir, cujos fiéis perseguem e molestam fisicamente). Quem tem ouvidos para ouvir, oiça!

Amplify’d from barenakedislam.wordpress.com

ISESCO, an arm of the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), called on the U.N. “to issue an international law criminalizing all forms of offense against religions under any circumstances.” Of course they say ‘religions’ but we know they only mean Islam. CNS NEWS Following the uproar over the threatened burning of the Quran by a small Florida church, a leading international Islamic body said Thursday that the United Nations should outlaw “all forms of offense against religions.” "The Florida Dove World Outreach Center Church’s plan to burn copies of the Holy Quran on September 11 … requires immediate action to outlaw all acts of defamation of religions and religious sanctities,” the Morocco-based Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) said in a communique. “It is a blot on humanity that such discriminatory attack against Islam and Islamic holy sites is continuing in the absence of deterrent legal measures, local and international.” ISESCO’s call was an expected opening salvo in a fresh push by the OIC to use both the Quran-burning threat and the Manhattan mosque dispute to move forward its decade-old campaign to get the U.N. to outlaw what it calls “religious defamation” worldwide. The OIC argues that legal deterrents are necessary in the light of instances of “Islamophobia” which it says have increased significantly since 9/11. OIC publications use the label “Islamophobia” to cover a range of incidents and trends, from anti-Muslim graffiti to criticism of human rights abuses in Islamic states to counter-terrorism profiling. Although it has succeeded in getting the U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Council to pass annual “religious defamation” resolutions the OIC’s drive has been losing ground – in terms of the size of the vote – amid growing public awareness and opposition by religious freedom, freedom of expression and other advocacy groups. Critics say outlawing “religious defamation” would silence legitimate criticism of Islamic teachings and authorities, make life even more difficult for non-Muslim minorities, and amount to enforcing blasphemy-type laws similar to those in place in some of the OIC’s most activist member states, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The declining support for its resolution campaign has prompted the OIC to pursue a parallel strategy – to have an existing global anti-racism measure, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), amended to incorporate religion. An editorial published by the Saudi daily Arab News Thursday expressed surprise that the U.S. authorities had no legal means of stopping the Quran-burning event because those behind it claimed to be “exercising their right to freedom of expression.”

Read more at barenakedislam.wordpress.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a4ce

O sagrado quê?

Esta infeliz ideia queimar o Alcorão, observando através da nuvem de poeira que à sua volta se levantou, expõe uma série de demonstrações de subserviência do Ocidente perante o islão e o medo que este infunde, de acordo com o prescrito no dito livro. Se não, repare-se: algum jornalista se refere à Bíblia como “Bíblia Sagrada”? A Jesus como “Jesus Cristo” (”Cristo” significa “Ungido”, o que corresponde ao reconhecimento de uma missão divina). Mas, hoje em dia, os media americanos usam sistematicamente as expressões “Prophet Mohamed” e “Holy Koran”.

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

For once, I’m with Hillary Clinton. Regarding the Rev. Terry Jones, the would-be Koran igniter who has at last backed down, the secretary of state said, “It is regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida, with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and . . . disgraceful plan and get the world’s attention, but that’s the world we live in right now.” “Get the world’s attention” is putting it mildly. The until-recently justifiably obscure Reverend Jones is now famous on seven continents. He is doubtless far better known in the Muslim world than, say, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has carried water for the World Trade Center mosque, and certainly better known than nearly all of those who lined up to denounce him.

All of the denouncers are obviously right, but why in the world were sane people called upon to respond to this flyspeck anyway? How did the Gainesville pastor become such a world-bestriding figure? He became news because he fulfilled a need for the press. They had to have another side to the Ground Zero mosque story. Why? Because members of the press are total suckers for “both-sidesism.” There is nothing they like better in a news story than to present two conflicting views and to pronounce that “both sides” are guilty of provocation or mistrust or violence or bad faith. They are confident that truth nearly always lies between two extremes. Exceptions are made when the antagonists are Democrats and Republicans or environmentalists and businessmen, but the generalization usually applies. The controversy over the Ground Zero mosque highlighted Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, a Muslim cleric who seems insensitive to the feelings of Americans regarding the 9/11 attacks. What the story needed was some Christian or Jewish cleric who could demonstrate indifference to the feelings of Muslims. It’s a measure of the integrity of mainstream religious figures in America that none could be found. They had to turn over rocks in rural Florida to find the handlebar-moustache-sporting Koran burner. But attempting to present “both sides” as having their extremists, their provocateurs, is quite simply absurd in this case. Though the easily inflamed members of the umma believe that America and the West generally are crawling with Muslim haters and that Islam is “under attack,” to use the favored phrase of al-Qaeda, the reality is quite otherwise. Americans actually do live out the meaning of their creed. Americans do honor religious expression of all kinds. And the overwhelming majority of Americans have shown no religious bigotry toward Muslims. When some bozo decides to express contempt for Islam by burning the Koran (book-burning being the mark of barbarians), Americans as if with one voice denounce him. The press has done the world, and particularly our men and women in the military, a severe disservice by making a household name of Reverend Jones. Let’s face it, if the feelings of American Christians and Jews are hurt (by, say, a mosque at Ground Zero), they will peacefully demonstrate in the streets, write letters to the editor, call their members of Congress, and possibly apply bumper stickers to their cars. If Muslims worldwide have their feelings hurt, there will be blood. The offense to Muslim sensibilities need not be real (remember the riots over the rumors of Koran-flushing at Guantanamo) and need not rise to the level of geopolitics (recall the riots in Nigeria over the Miss World contest). A significant minority of Muslims have a hair-trigger for violence and murder. Everyone knows this, which is why Secretary of State Clinton referred so respectfully to the “holy Koran.” Responsible non-Muslims are attempting, oh so conscientiously, to convey the message that the West does not despise Islam. The press, for the sake of “both-sidesism,” has undermined that message profoundly.Read more at www.nationalreview.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a3i3

A mesquita do Ground Zero: ponto de viragem?

Andrew McCarthy partilha a opinião de Daniel Pipes: a ideia e a persistência em construir uma mesquita a dois quarteirões do Ground Zero esgotou a paciência dos norte-americanos para os avanços, lamúrias e exigências de alguns movimenos norte-americanos que dizem representar os muçulmanos dos EUA. Destaque para a opinião de McCarthy sobre o “islão moderado”, expressa nos antepenúltimo e último parágrafos deste texto.

Amplify’d from www.nationalreview.com

On the Ground Zero mosque, Americans reject the opinion elites that empower the Islamists.

A tectonic shift is in motion: How fitting that its focal point is Ground Zero, the inevitable fault line between Islam and the West.

Only the blink of an eye ago, uttering the unpleasant truth that in terms of doctrine there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” resulted in one’s banishment from what our opinion elites like to call the “mainstream,” by which they mean the narrow-minded, viciously defended circle of their own pieties and fictions. You could say it, but your skin had better have an extra coat or two of thick: You were in for a fusillade of rage, the likes of which our candor-phobic elites would never dream of unleashing at our Islamist enemies — no matter how clearly those enemies announced their intention to destroy us.

The fusillade still comes, but now its blows only glance. The elites and their mainstream have been exposed as frauds: Being on the wrong side of enough 70-30 issues will do that to you.

It should never have gotten this far. Sponsors of the Ground Zero mosque neither own the property in question nor possess the means to build and operate the palatial Islamic center they envision. The more light that shines on their record of murky real-estate dealings and the dubious circumstances of their limited stake in the Ground Zero property, the more questions arise. In a more sensible world, those questions would get answered before we plunged into a rancorous public debate. That hasn’t happened, though. In spite of the implacable determination of the mayor (and the attorney general who would be governor) to look the other way, the issue has galvanized the public. What has long bubbled beneath the surface did not need much more heat to boil over.

For the better part of two decades, Americans have been murdered by Islamists and then lectured that they are to blame for what has befallen them. We have been instructed in the need for special sensitivity to the unceasing demands of Islamic culture and falsely accused of intolerance by the people who wrote the book on intolerance. Americans have sacrificed blood and bottomless treasure for Islamic peoples who despise Americans — and despise us even more as our sacrifices and gestures of self-loathing intensify. Americans have watched as apologists for terrorists and sharia were made the face of an American Muslim community that we were simultaneously assured was the very picture of pro-American moderation.

Americans have had our fill. We are willing to live many lies. This one, though, strikes too close to home, arousing our heretofore dormant sense of decency. Americans have now heard Barack Obama’s shtick enough times to know that when he talks about “our values,” he’s really talking about his values, which most of us don’t share. And after ten years of CAIR’s tired tirades, we’re immune to Feisal Rauf, too.

We look around us and we see our country unrivaled by anything in the history of human tolerance. We see thousands of thriving mosques, permitted to operate freely even though we know for a fact that mosques have been used against us, repeatedly, to urge terrorism, recruit terrorists, raise money for terrorists, store and transfer firearms, and inflame Muslims against America and the West. As Islamists rage against us, we see Islam celebrated in official Washington. As we reach out for the umpty-umpth time, we find Muslim leaders taking what we offer, but always with complaint and never with reciprocation. We’re weary, and we don’t really care if that means that Time magazine, Michael Bloomberg, Katie Couric, Fareed Zakaria, and the rest think we’re bad people — they think we’re bad people, anyway.

So finally we’re asking: Where is this “moderate Islam” you’ve been telling us about? Why would a self-proclaimed bridge-builder insist on something so patently provocative and divisive? How can we be sure that if imam Rauf builds his monument on our graveyard, it won’t become what other purportedly “moderate” Islamic centers have become: a cauldron of anti-American vitriol?

It turns out that there are no satisfactory answers. When finally pressed on the taxonomy of moderate Islam, the best our elites can do — besides shouting “Islamophobia!” — is debate whether there ever was a “golden age” of Islamic tolerance. They have to confess that the Islamists — whom they’d like us to see as a handful of “extremists” but who are in truth a mass movement — are in the ascendancy. It is embarrassingly obvious that while some of us have been working to defeat Islamism in our midst, our elites are of the incorrigibly progressive mindset that counsels accommodating them — in the delusion that they will be appeased rather than encouraged to become more aggressive. That is precisely the mindset that makes an Islamist think: Maybe now is the time for a $100 million mosque at Ground Zero.

“Moderate Islam” is a dream, not a reality. It is a dream with potential, because there are millions of Muslims who are moderate people, and because there are dedicated Muslims working to transform their faith into something that is institutionally moderate. But they work against great odds. They confront Islamists whose dedication to theocratic principles is deeply and undeniably rooted in Islamic scripture. And they confront American opinion elites who, wittingly or not, serve as the lifeline of the Islamists.

The reformers’ slim chance at prevailing hinges on the American people’s will to say “no” to our self-anointed betters. Ground Zero, once again the site of epic Islamist overreach, may be remembered as the place where we started to say “no.”

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. Read more at www.nationalreview.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a381

Non mutauisti

Lá vem rastejando a revolução cultural. Não bastavam os festivais estivais como o Pessimus Alive a promoverem ipsis verbis a "luta contra a reacção", enquanto decapitam o capital cognitivo entre outros da nossa juventude, agora a Nasty, aquela água suja de sabor dúbio que palia o Verão de alguns, lançou uma campanha de marketing pela mudança e destruição da nossa querida língua vernácula, aquela que o outro reconhecia como sua pátria. Querem pedir ao Ministério da Sciência, Technologia e Ensino Superior que se introduza uma palavra estúpida "nos dicionários da Língua Portuguesa - começando por aquele compilado pela Academia de Ciências de Lisboa "-, razoando desvairados que "hoje são imensas as palavras insignificantes com sentidos imperceptíveis como “opidano”, “ingresia” ou “exaurir” que se mantêm presentes nos dicionários da Língua Portuguesa", palavras estas já reunidas numa lista a que chamaram lixionário. Também oferecem CDs para os miúdos aprenderem a escrepver mal.

Mesquitas como quartéis

Robert Spencer sobre as mesquitas como escolas de ódio e violência, como quartéis e como paióis; fala ainda sobre a situação nos EUA. De recordar as palavras do primeiro-ministro turco Erdogan, citando um poeta turco: "The domes are our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the believers our army."

Amplify’d from http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/spencer-closed-for-business.html

On Monday, authorities in Hamburg, Germany announced that they had finally shut down the Taiba mosque, which as the Al-Quds mosque in 2001 was a meeting place for several of the 9/11 jihad terrorists, including Mohamed Atta, and which continued to be a hotbed of jihad activity thereafter: a May 2010 report from Hamburg's Interior Ministry called the mosque "the central attraction for the jihadist scene." Christoph Ahlhaus, Hamburg's secretary of the interior, announced Monday: "Today we closed the Taiba mosque because young men were being turned into religious fanatics there. Behind the scenes, a supposed cultural organization shamelessly used the freedoms of our democratic rule of law to promote holy war. Hamburg cannot become a cradle for Islamists capable of violence." Yet that is exactly what it was. In March 2009 eleven Islamic jihadists who met in the Taiba mosque went to Pakistan, apparently to attend a jihad training camp. The mosque's imam, Mamoun Darkazanli, may have aided al-Qaeda - and as the mosque was closed this week, his whereabouts were unknown. The Hamburg mosque was not singular. In recent years mosques have been used to preach hatred [2]; to spread exhortations to terrorist activity [3]; to house a bomb factory [4]; to store weapons [5]; to disseminate messages from bin Laden [6]; to demand (in the United States) that non-Muslims conform to Islamic dietary restrictions [7]; to fire on American troops [8]; to fire upon Indian troops [9]; to train jihadists [10]; and much more. Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/8iv7

Descriminar para proteger

Pipes analisa o fenómeno do terrorismo islâmico com origem no Reino Unido e chama a atenção para a necessidade de usar medidas de segurança reforçadas para os muçulmanos, independentemente da sua nacionalidade, raça, sexo. Medidas deste tipo, por mais impopulares que sejam, têm uma base segura na estatística e na investigação sobre terrorismo.

Amplify’d from pt.danielpipes.org

A Nova Exportação Britânica: Carnificina Islamista por Daniel Pipes National Review Online 3 de Agosto de 2010 http://pt.danielpipes.org/8723/exportacao-britanica-carnificina-islamista Original em inglês: Britain's New Export: Islamist Carnage Tradução: Joseph Skilnik

A maior e mais demorada investigação sobre terrorismo realizada na Grã-Bretanha terminou no mês passado com a condenação de três muçulmanos britânicos. A conspiração de 2006 envolvia explodir aviões de passageiros com rotas transatlânticas na esperança de matar até 10.000 pessoas. Essa quase catástrofe nos faz lembrar de forma dolorosa do perigo global apresentado pelo Islã radical baseado no Reino Unido.

A Heritage Foundation chama o islamismo britânico de "uma ameaça direta à segurança" dos Estados Unidos e The New Republic considera-o "a maior ameaça à segurança dos Estados Unidos." As autoridades concordam. O secretário do interior britânico compilou um dossiê em 2003 reconhecendo que o seu país proporciona uma "base importante" ao terrorismo. Um estudo da CIA de 2009 concluiu que cidadãos nascidos na Grã-Bretanha de descendência paquistanesa (que podem entrar livremente nos Estados Unidos com base no Programa de Isenção de Visto) constituem a fonte mais provável de terrorismo contra os Estados Unidos.

O London's Centre for Social Cohesion dirigido pelo excelente Douglas Murray verifica, atualiza e documenta esses relatórios, acaba de publicar uma obra com 535 páginas, Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections, escrita por Robin Simcox, Hannah Stuart e Houriya Ahmed. Ela consiste primordialmente de informações biográficas detalhadas de dois tipos de criminosos que ela chama de "crimes relacionados ao islamismo" ou IROs – significando ocorrências em que as evidências apontam a fé islamista como principal motivadora.

A maioria dos IROs, em resumo, é perpretada basicamente por muçulmanos comuns cujas mentes sofreram uma lavagem cerebral por meio da consistente e poderosa ideologia do islamismo. Tem-se a esperança de que o número de terroristas esteja limitado a psicopatas, assim o problema seria menos difícil de ser confrontado e eliminado. Os dois terroristas suicidas britânicos que atacaram uma casa noturna em Tel-Aviv.

O Serviço de Segurança da Grã-Bretanha estima que mais de 2.000 residentes representam hoje uma ameaça terrorista, o que implica não apenas que o "pacto de segurança" que outrora protegia parcialmente o Reino Unido de ataques vindos de seus próprios muçulmanos está extinto há muito tempo, mas que o Reino Unido pode enfrentar a pior ameaça terrorista interna de qualquer país ocidental salvo Israel.

Essa documentação sugere várias questões: Primeira, quanto tempo ainda vai levar até que as autoridades britânicas compreendam que a sua política atual – tentar melhorar as condições materiais dos muçulmanos e ao mesmo tempo aplacar os islamistas – deixa escapar a questão fundamental da ideologia? Segundo, as evidências até agora tendem a apontar no cômputo geral que os IROs fortalecem a causa islamista na Grã-Bretanha; será que continuará a ser essa a norma, ainda que a violência persista ou será que os IROs irão no final sofrer um retrocesso?

E por último, o que terá que acontecer em termos de destruição para que os governos (não o do Reino Unido) se concentrem nos procedimentos de entrada em seus países de um ou dois porcento dos britânicos dos quais os criminosos exclusivamente derivam – a população muçulmana? Por mais desagradável que seja esse enfoque, é melhor que ser explodido no ar. Read more at pt.danielpipes.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/8h0d

Cruzadas: lenda negra contra a Igreja, volta-se contra o Ocidente

Artigo do jornalista italiano Vittorio Messori sobre as Cruzadas, no qual se aborda a razão de figurarem entre os argumentos usados pelos muçulmanos contra o Ocidente, considerando que antes do colonialismo o mundo islâmico as tinha praticamente esquecido.

Um artigo a ler integralmente na língua original ou em castelhano no Religión en Libertad:

Amplify’d from www.kattoliko.it

Crociate

di Vittorio Messori

[Da «il Timone» n. 49, Gennaio 2006]

Cardini che ha ricordato più volte come l’Occidente moderno abbia contribuito a creare con le sue mani la reazione islamica di cui è ora bersaglio. Nel mondo musulmano, ciò che viene da Europa, da Israele, dall’America è qualificato con odio, invariabilmente, Come “crociata”. “Crociati” sono gli israeliani che distruggono case ed elevano muri, “crociati” sono gli americani che bombardano e che occupano, “crociati” sono gli europei, anche se giungono tra loro con organizzazioni umanitarie. In realtà, come ha documentato lo storico fiorentino, la memoria delle spedizioni dei due primi secoli del Mille era praticamente scomparsa tra i musulmani se non, forse, nelle zone del Medio Oriente che avevano visto quel confronto. In effetti, sul piano oggettivo, le crociate — che avevano mobilitato poche migliaia di uomini — erano state un colpo di spillo in un mondo islamico sconfinato, che andava dal Portogallo sino all’Asia Centrale. Venne, però, l‘era del colonialismo e i governi europei, a cominciare da quello francese — composti da massoni e funzionanti come bracci politici delle Grandi Logge — si inquietarono perché al seguito delle truppe che conquistavano territori in Africa e in Asia giungevano i missionari. Bisognava neutralizzarli: da qui, il gran daffare per installare anche in quei luoghi la contro-chiesa, la massoneria, nella quale educare i notabili locali. A quelle logge fu affidata la propaganda anticattolica: come prendere sul seno i preti, i cui predecessori avevano organizzato e gestito campagne di guerra contro l’Islam, avevano massacrato bambini, violentato donne, rubati i tesori e tutto questo l’avevano chiamato “crociata”? La memoria di quegli eventi, travestita con i panni della più plateale leggenda nera, fu richiamata in vita, annunciata alte plebi, che spesso non ne avevano mai sentito parlare e sempre più radicalizzata. Il colonialismo finì, ma il seme gettato aveva ormai vigoreggiato: l’odio destinato alla Chiesa ha finito, così, per coinvolgere l’intero Occidente, con i risultati che ora vediamo bene.

La crociata non fu aggressione e non fu guerra santa, fu legittima difesa: è una verità che sembra non si riesca a far passare. Eppure, basterebbe un piccolo atlante storico per capire. Quando Costantinopoli fece pervenire in Europa il suo grido di aiuto, il già estesissimo Impero Romano d’Oriente era ridotto alle dimensioni dell’attuale, piccola Grecia, inferiore alla metà dell’Italia. Dopo la conquista del Medio Oriente e di tutta l’Africa del Nord, ai guerrieri di Allah bastava solo un passo ulteriore ed era finita anche per quell’ultimo lembo di cristianità. Andare in soccorso dei fratelli nella fede era un sacro dovere. Certo, la storia è misteriosa e, ad occhi umani, talvolta crudele. Nate anche come impresa di solidarietà tra cristianità orientale e occidentale, le crociate finirono col creare tra le due comunità un muro che non si è ancora riusciti a sgretolare. Quella Costantinopoli che i turchi non erano riusciti ancora ad espugnare, fu presa e saccheggiata, nel 1204, da un esercito che era partito dall’Europa con le insegne della crociata e che, invece che contro gli infedeli, finì coll’accanirsi contro i fratelli nella fede. Se la crociata non fu aggressione, non fu neppure, dicevamo, guerra di religione. Ciò che importava era riaprire ai cristiani la via del pellegrinaggio verso il santo Sepolcro, nessuno aveva intenzione di convertire al Vangelo i seguaci del Corano. Non ci furono sforzi missionari. A parte qualche atto isolato di gruppetti fanatici, nessun musulmano fu infastidito per la sua fede. La Chiesa, comunque, non mise mai questo tra gli obiettivi della crociata. Come mostrano le fonti, a Gerusalemme i Templari stessi, pur sempre pronti a dar battaglia, se necessario, avevano a fianco della loro chiesa una moschea e ciascuno lasciava che l’altro pregasse il suo Dio. I primi tentativi di conversione in quei luoghi risalgono al XIII secolo, ad opera dei Francescani, quando ormai tutto era finito per i Regni cristiani e l’Islam aveva ridisteso ovunque la sua coltre. Non a caso, quei frati finirono quasi tutti martiri. Read more at www.kattoliko.it

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/8gyw

Messori com o então Cardeal Ratzinger em 1984.

Israel atacado com armas norte-americanas

Melanie Phillips aborda fornecimento norte-americano de armas ao exército libanês, o qual, na prática, é um ramo do Hezbollah, organização terrorista cujo objectivo é derrotar a "aliança imperialista cruzado-sionista", ou seja, dito com linguagem de gente sã, os próprios EUA e Israel. Lede tudo!

Amplify’d from www.spectator.co.uk

As the days have passed, it has become ever clearer that the deadly ambush laid by the Lebanese army for the IDF, in which Israeli Lt Col Dov Harari was killed (his funeral is pictured here) along with three Lebanese soldiers and one Lebanese journalist, was a Hezbollah operation.

In the Washington Post, Israel’s ambassador to the US Michael Oren wrote:

Although the maintenance work was fully coordinated with the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, and the fatal shot was fired by the nominally independent Lebanese Armed Forces, Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, sent a television crew to film the ambush. He applauded the murder as a ‘heroic confrontation’ and threatened to ‘cut off the arm’ of Lebanon's enemies, ostensibly by firing his Iranian- and Syrian-supplied arsenal of more than 42,000 rockets at Israeli cities and towns.

It is hardly surprising that the ambush turns out to have been another staged performance from the Jihadiwood Production Company, since blogger Emet m’Tsiyon reports that the Lebanese ‘village’ of Adeissa, where the ambush took place, is not a functioning village at all but a Hezbollah military stronghold, consisting merely of

an elaborate system of bunkers and shooting platforms designed to look like houses...

But there is a further surreal twist to the affair. In the Tablet, Yoav Fromer asks whether American arms supplied to the Lebanese army are now being used against Israel. The answer is almost certainly yes.

The pictures speak for themselves: Freshly uniformed Lebanese soldiers, armed with U.S.-made M-16s and backed by U.S.-made M113 armored personnel carriers, can be clearly seen firing at Israeli soldiers who are standing on Israeli territory. Given the generous military aid that Lebanon has been receiving from the United States in recent years—aid that included sophisticated sniper rifles of the kind that may have been used to target and kill the Israeli officer, Lt. Col. Dov Harari—one cannot ignore the possibility that the same U.S. weapons intended to help stabilize Lebanon and secure the northern Israeli border may be having the opposite effect.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Lebanon is now the second-largest recipient of American military aid per capita after Israel. Yet the evidence strongly suggests it has become a Hezbollah fiefdom. Arming the Lebanese forces therefore means arming Hezbollah. Hezbollah, like its sponsor Iran, regards itself as in a holy war against America and the west.

And so what does the Obama administration say about its arms to Lebanon policy? When asked about this after last weekend’s ambush Philip Crowley, Assistant Secretary at the State Department, replied:

This is not the first time we’ve had incidents of this nature. We want to see that they don’t happen again. But we do have interests on both sides of the border. We are committed to Israel’s security, but we’re also committed to Lebanese sovereignty. These interests are not mutual exclusive. They’re not in contradiction.

Let us not forget that a major factor behind the Hezbollah/Iranian takeover of Lebanon is that America so shamefully betrayed its nascent democracy movement, when the US failed to press for the indictment of Syria over the murder of Lebanese President Rafik Hariri. As Lee Smith points out in his fine book The Strong Horse, this stopped dead in its tracks the 'Cedar Revolution' in Lebanon and thus in turn the movement for democracy in the wider Middle East, empowering instead Iran and its terrorist proxies.

America appears to have developed the political equivalent of an auto-immune disease – nourishing those who would kill it, while attacking those who are vital to its health. Read more at www.spectator.co.uk

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/8gv6

Muçulmano sírio-americano avisa

Lede tudo:

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org

A Syrian reformer articulates some truths that urgently need to be heard. "When Islam Acts Like a Conquering Army," by Farid Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria at AINA, August 7:

what if religion acts like a conquering army? How could we reconcile this fact with our laws? Being an American, laws will always prevail, but being a Muslim also, I have a warning: We will conquer you if you do not change your laws accordingly. The US better reconcile between Freedom of Religion and Islam as a conquering army soon. The two cannot co-exist for long. Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/8gah

Detidos em Guantanamo têm Play Station, Skype e aulas

Tudo à custa do contribuinte norte-americano. Se são inocentes, o melhor é soltá-los. Como se tem verificado, grande parte volta para os campos de batalha jihadistas e muitos acabam por ser mortos em combate. Se são culpados, o crime acaba por compensar: estão melhor que muitos dos seus compatriotas, arrastados para a miséria e oprimidos pelos regimes islamitas que os mujahedin querem implantar no resto do mundo.

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org

"Gitmo Detainees Serve Time By Playing Games, Talking to Family on Skype, Taking Classes," by Mike Levine for FoxNews.com, July 13 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

President Obama has not fulfilled his pledge to close the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, but he has brought Skype, Playstation3 and "life skills" classes to the detainees at the island facility. While the 181 men being held in the prison wait to learn their fates after the administration fell through on its January 2010 deadline to move them out, 90 percent now live in a communal environment that includes Skype, the online video chat service, and access to a 17,000-book library. That's up from 40 percent of detainees a year ago. The "Twilight" series, a hit among so-called "tweens," is also popular with detainees, the camp's "librarian" said. [...] But, McManus said, the Skype sessions are monitored "so they won't give away force protection information." "Obviously we don't want them to say, 'I'm here at this camp. There's this many people here, and this is where the guards are,'" he said.... How reassuring! Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/7sg2

Eurábia hoje (2)

Veja ainda a notícia que dá conta da aplicação de um plástico escuro nos vidros de uma piscina também no Reino Unido, deixando o seu interior na penumbra, para «proteger a modéstia das mulheres muçulmanas»:

«A council has sparked anger after officials blacked out windows on a glass-panelled swimming pool to protect the modesty of Muslim women.

Darlaston Leisure Centre in the West Midlands' town of Walsall, was hailed for its 'ultra-modern' design when it opened ten years ago.

But now council staff have covered 250 windows with dark-tinted film following complaints from Muslim swimmers.

But other users say the move has plunged the pool into almost permanent darkness and branded it 'political correctness gone stark-raving mad'.

Pauline Poole, 65, a retired legal secretary from Walsall, said: 'I returned to swimming after having a cataracts operation some months ago and was looking forward to looking out on some lovely trees while swimming.

'What I found was a situation that reminded me of how it felt like before my operation, like looking at a horrible cloudy view.

'If it was done for a minority of people, then why was there no vote on it?'

Retired building surveyor John Ewart, 63, from Walsall, added: 'I cannot believe this council has agreed to something so loony.

'The whole thing smacks of political correctness gone stark raving mad.

'A lot of the people who swim are elderly or retired and they now have to swim in the gloom.'

A worker at the pool, who did not want to be named, said: 'The windows were covered up and it's probably cost a few hundred pounds.

'Several customers complained it made the pool dark and dingy but we didn't have a choice.' [...]

A spokeswoman for Walsall Council said the complaints had predominantly come from the Muslim community but that non-Muslim women had also objected.

She said: 'We received a request from the Muslim Community to protect the modesty of swimmers.

'There were also requests made by some non-Muslim users as well.'»

In Jihad Watch.

Eurábia hoje

Eurábia é a sharia sobrepor-se à lei de um país, tornando-se a lei de facto do país. Questão para os progressistas: onde está a indignação perante uma situação que prejudica as mulheres cujos direitos os esquerdopatas afirmam defender?

«(...) [A] report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia's civil code, a woman's testimony is worth half of a man's. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters. There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.

But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal. There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands. (...) An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child's best interest is the court's paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband's consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage. There is an assumption that those who attend sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged. Since much of sharia law is contrary to British law and public policy, in theory they would be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions and may lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a sharia court could lead to to threats, intimidation or isolation. (...)»

Via Jihad Watch.

Junho de 2010: sharia em Dearborn, Michigan, EUA

A sharia proíbe o proselitismo. A polícia de Dearborn delimita uma zona onde a sharia é aplicada.

Obama confidencia ser muçulmano

Esta é daquelas entradas que me expõe a ser acusado de estar a delirar, de estar louco de ódio ou raiva ao ponto de interpretar delirantemente os sinais que nos vão chegando dos EUA. Não me importo de correr esse risco, porque segui muito de perto a campanha presidencial americana em 2008, li muito sobre a história pessoal e política de Obama, vi como os media se escusaram de cumprir o seu dever de investigar a fundo o candidato e de informar os norte-americanos. Embora nada de concreto e incontestável se pudesse dizer de Obama que desaconselhasse em absoluto a sua eleição ― apesar da sua visão socialista e idealista/pós-modernista da sociedade fosse alarmante ―, ficou da campanha uma impressão, logo confirmada desde o início da presidência, de que não se podia confiar neste homem. Leio hoje esta entrada do Atlas Shrugs, na qual se dá conta de um relato do embaixador egípcio nos EUA segundo o qual Obama lhe terá dito que «é muçulmano, que é filho de um muçulmano, neto de um muçulmano, que todos os seus irmão no Quénia são muçulmanos e que é simpatizante da causa islâmica» (tradução nossa). Desafio os leitores a ler a referida entrada do Atlas Shrugs e a escrutinar por si próprio a lista de acontecimentos relevantes para este caso que Pamela Geller. É, de facto, uma história em que é difícil acreditar. Mas será impossível? Da entrada de Geller, colo apenas a citação Raymond Ibrahim sobre taqiyya:

«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].»

Para compreender melhor o alcance da doutrina da taqiyya, não deixe de ler o artigo de Raymond Ibrahim no Middle East Quarterly (aqui em francês).

Entrevista a Melanie Phillips a propósito do lançamento do seu mais recente livro

Melanie Phillips, que conhecemos dos seus artigos no Spectator, entre outras publicações, acaba de lançar o seu mais recente livro, The World Turned Upside Down. O Catholic World Report entrevista a autora, que fala de Obama, de Fé e Razão, de Ciência e Cientismo, de Alterações Climáticas, de Esquerda e Utopia, do Islão e dos seus aliados ocidentais:

How did you select the title of your book?

Melanie Phillips: It arose in my mind because that’s how I think about the situation in the West. So often I’m writing about all manner of things happening, where everything’s been turned backwards and inside out. Right has turned into wrong, justice into injustice, victim into victimizer and so on. And I know from the response I get from my readers that on very many issues they think that too. But they are perplexed by the fact that what they think of as clearly demonstrable reality is represented in a way that makes white black and black white. They feel absolutely perplexed and bewildered, and that’s why I called the book The World Turned Upside Down.

Could you explain the “Princess Obama” syndrome?

Phillips: Yes, it comes from the fact that I look at two phenomena, the cult that surrounded Princess Diana in Britain and the cult that surrounded Barack Obama when he was running for president. Of course the shine has come off Barack Obama, but I was looking at this extraordinary hype that surrounded him when he was running for president.

In both cases it seemed to me that the reason for the hysteria and the hype was that the public was projecting onto both of these personalities its hopes and fears…and they thought that both of these characters would transcend these difficulties.

For example, Princess Diana was perceived as one of life’s victims. She was the product of a broken home, she had an eating disorder—she had a lot of problems. She was unhappily married to a man who was perceived to be cold and unfeeling. And yet she transcended all of this because she was beautiful, she was a fairy-tale princess. She was the “Queen of Hearts” and all that sort of nonsense. And so it was a kind of psychological projection and transcendence, and that’s why she was so important to people, and that’s why there was so much hysteria when she died.

Similarly, Barack Obama seemed to me to have achieved near-divine status because he was seen, I think, as someone who—by virtue of what he was and where he came from—would transcend some of the more traumatic problems that America felt it had, in particular its terrible history of slavery, its history of discrimination against black people, and the current situation in which America was fighting against the Islamic world. Obama, who himself fused black and white, Muslim and Christian, seemed to represent a kind of promise of global harmony.

[Obama] became a kind of mythic figure just as Princess Diana had been a mythic figure. So in order to illustrate this phenomenon of psychological projection, I called it the Princess Obama syndrome.

You talk about how science and religion were not always regarded as being at odds with one other, but that “scientism” (the belief that scientific materialism alone can answer all the questions in the world) has taken over. How did it happen that religion became the enemy of science?

Phillips: I think the explanation is that science became identified with materialism. When Western science led the way there was no problem—religion and science were held to be completely compatible with each other. They were simply exploring different things. Science was the attempt to explore and explain the world that could be seen. Religion was the attempt to explain reasons behind the world, and these were considered separate spheres which could co-exist very happily.

Some of the most distinguished scientists from that time onwards have been religious believers. Now for various reasons this doctrine of materialism grew up that made no room for religion. One can trace this way of thinking to the Enlightenment, to Francis Bacon and other thinkers who tried to make science basically take over from God. And for various reasons this strain of thought took root particularly in the 20th century and thus caused science, in my view, to overreach itself.

So science became scientism, which is this argument that says explicitly that there can be no explanation for anything in the universe or in the whole of experience that is not a materialist explanation. This is absolutely ludicrous, because there are all kinds of things that go on, like love and law and philosophy, which don’t have a materialist explanation. And they’re not irrational. But scientists have said there’s no room for anything that isn’t explained by science, which has caused those scientists who take that view to become irrational in, say, their attempts to explain the origins of the universe. They would have us believe that live matter evolved from inanimate matter, which is a kind of magic. That is a species of superstitious belief.

So you have people who purport to be the most rational in our world actually saying extremely silly and irrational things. And that is because they’ve been led into this terrible trap by the doctrine of materialism, which has resulted in this forced polarity, this forced opposition of science and religion.

Crise humanitária em Gaza?

Por que razão tantos cidadão ocidentais estão tão revoltados com o bloqueio naval a Gaza, que visa, recorde-se, impedir a entrada de armas, ou material que sirva para a sua construção, no território que se estende entre o Mar Mediterrâneo e o sudoeste de Israel, território do qual o exército israelita se retirou em 2005, como passo necessário e meio-caminho andado ― diziam os mais optimistas ― para a paz com os palestinianos? A razão da maioria, presumo, é humanitária: a julgar pelo que conhecemos de Gaza, os seus residentes estarão a passar dificuldades com a ausência de meios para satisfazer as necessidades mais básicas. Será verdade? Veja-se o quadro (note-se que os dados são anteriores a 2005, ou seja, do tempo em que Gaza estava ocupada pelo exército israelita): Fome não parece haver. E como estarão as coisas hoje, em consequência do bloqueio decretado por Israel desde que o Hamas ― cujos estatutos definem como objectivo a aniquilação de Israel ― está no poder?

Para saber sobre a real situação de Gaza, ou seja, para romper o bloqueio informativo que os media ocidentais têm em curso, visite o site de Tom Gross, onde poderá ficar a conhecer um restaurante de luxo e uma piscina olímpica de Gaza e ver o desmontar de outras mentiras sobre o conflito Israelo-Árabe. Via Vlad Tepes e Melanie Phillips, que diz:

«(...) That there is hardship in Gaza is indisputable. But that is caused solely by the fact that it is at war with Israel --waged by a regime that also imposes great hardship and suffering upon the Gazans themselves. The flotilla activists and their supporters, however, continue to maintain that Gaza is starving and that their purpose was to bring in supplies that don’t exist because of the blockade. (...)»

Se não fosse trágico, daria vontade de rir

A British abortion organization is opening up a chain of abortion clinics in China, you know the land of forced abortions. And you thought all those pro-aborts were actually pro-choice? Times Online reports:

Marie Stopes International (MSI) has opened five outlets in China’s eastern province of Jiangsu. Here the selective abortion of girls has led to a gender imbalance of up to 131 boys for every 100 girls. The closeness of MSI’s relationship with the Chinese government was shown earlier this month when Li Bin, its population minister, visited the MSI offices in London and an abortion clinic in Bristol.

But hold on it gets better. MSI is arguing that they're going to China to promote "choice" in China. Ha! These people are insane if they expect anyone not in the media to believe something like that. An organization that makes its money performing abortions is going to the land of forced abortion to teach them that children should sometimes not be aborted. What? I'm trying to think of an analogy to that but none are coming into my head. Feel free to offer some up and make me feel stupid. Sadly, according to the article, some in England seem most upset by the fact that MSI receives millions in taxpayer funds and they're wondering why their money is being used to abort Chinese babies when it could be so much better spent on killing little English babies. God help us.

In Creative Minority Report.

Hipocrisia turca exposta no Parlamento Europeu

Ao que tudo indica, a Turquia ― possivelmente ao mais alto nível da sua hierarquia política ―, esteve envolvida no planeamento da tentativa de violação do bloqueio naval israelita a Gaza, cujas trágicas consequências são conhecidas. Apesar disso, a Turquia apressa-se a saír a terreiro exigindo que as alegadas violações dos direitos humanos perpetradas por Israel sejam punidas, não se inibindo de invocar os mesmos direitos que a própria Turquia não reconhece a parte dos seus cidadãos, cristãos e curdos. Disso fala um eurodeputado holandês ― do PVV, partido liderado por Gert Wilders ―, em sede própria, dirigindo-se a um representante da Turquia nesse forum: Via Vlad Tepes Blog.

Videoteca do islamismo: «Islam Rising (1 of 4)»

O leitor assíduo do Também Isto É Vaidade que nos tenha seguido para aqui, não encontrará nenhuma revelação surpreendente neste video; o seu valor consiste sobretudo em condensar muita informação reveladora da verdadeira natureza do islão e do processo de conquista, simultaneamente subversivo e beligerante, em curso nas sociedades ocidentais. Um bom video, portanto, para distribuir pelos amigos e colegas que tenham alguma curiosidade pela matéria, que não estejam satisfeitos com as ladainhas islamófilas que se ouvem continuamente.

Islam Rising: Part 1 of 4 - Celebrity bloopers here

Via Kitman TV. N.B.: O video foi removido do Metacafe. Encontrei-o num outro servidor:

Islam Rising: Part 1 of 4 - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.