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?»

Vlad Tepes

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

• Vlad Tepes. Tem uma secção com filmes, semelhante à nossa Videoteca do Islamismo.
• Islam: the Religion of Peace (and a big stack of dead bodies), que trata de fazer a contagem dos ataques jihadistas, e das suas vítimas, por todo o mundo.

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.»

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.

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?

Infiltração jihadista (15)

Elogio da autoria de Anwar al-Awlaki, imã da mesquita Dar al Hijrah, situada em Falls Church, Virgina, EUA, ao autor do ataque terrorista de Fort Hood, Major Nidal Hassan, que terá frequentado a dita mesquita e beneficiado da orientação espiritual de Awlaki, assim como dois dos autores dos atentados de 11 de Setembro antes dele. Tomei conhecimento deste elogio via Victor Davis Hanson. Não consegui encontrar a fonte. O texto aparece publicado em vários sites. Num deles encontrei um endereço de um blogue com o nome do imã, blogue que se encontra sem actividade. Mas passemos ao elogio e aprendamos com as palavras do imã, cheias de conhecimento de causa. Temos muito mais a aprender com os islamistas que são francos acerca dos seus propósitos e das suas estratégias do que com os intelectuais ocidentais que procuram encontrar explicações alternativas. Por que razão havemos de duvidar das palavras de al-Awlaki e acreditar nas de um qualquer dhimmi apostado em perpetuar a cegueira do Ocidente face à ameaça que nos assola?

«Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges….[T]he only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal….The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims.»

Realmente, muito instrutivo.

Infiltração jihadista (14)

Michelle Malkin, num artigo já aqui referido, elenca casos anteriores de militares muçulmanos norte-americanos que assassinaram concidadãos.

• John Muhammad, the Beltway jihadist put to death Tuesday night, was a member of the Army's 84th Engineering Company. As I've reported previously, Muhammad was suspected of throwing a thermite grenade into a tent housing 16 of his fellow soldiers as they slept before the ground-attack phase of Gulf War I in 1991. Muhammad was admitted to the Army despite being court-martialed while serving in the Louisiana National Guard for willfully disobeying orders, striking another noncommissioned officer, wrongfully taking property and being absent without leave. Although Muhammad was led away in handcuffs and transferred to another company pending charges for the grenade attack, an indictment never materialized. Muhammad was honorably discharged from the Army in 1994. He later brainwashed young Lee Malvo in black nationalism and jihad -- and the two carried out the three-week killing spree that left 10 dead in 2002 in the name of Allah.
• Muslim American soldier Hasan Abujihaad was convicted last year on espionage and material terrorism support charges after serving aboard the USS Benfold and sharing classified information with al-Qaida financiers, including movements of U.S. ships just six months after al-Qaida operatives had killed 17 Americans aboard the USS Cole in the port of Yemen.

• Jeffrey Leon Battle was a former Army reservist, convicted of conspiring to levy war against the United States and "enlisting in the Reserves to receive military training to use against America." He had planned to wage war against American soldiers in Afghanistan.
• Egyptian Ali A. Mohamed joined the U.S. Army while a resident alien despite being on a State Department terrorist watch list before securing his visa. An avowed Islamist, he taught classes on Muslim culture to U.S. Special Forces at Fort Bragg, N.C., and obtained classified military documents. He was granted U.S. citizenship over the objections of the CIA. Honorably discharged from the Army in 1989, Mohamed then hooked up with Osama bin Laden as an escort, trainer, bagman and messenger. Mohamed used his U.S. passport to conduct surveillance at the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. He later pleaded guilty to conspiring with bin Laden and admitted his role in the 1998 African embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people, including a dozen Americans.

E conclui, acerca da obstinada persistência em recusar ver as evidentes ligações entre o radicalismo islâmico e o ataque de Fort Hood, motivado, segundo Malkin pelo politicamente correcto:

«(...) Political correctness is a gangrenous infection. My generation has submitted to a toxic diet of multiculturalism, identity politics, anti-Americanism and entitlement. The problem festered under the Bush administration. Despite 9/11, government at all levels refused to screen out jihadi-apologizing influences in our military, at the FBI, in prisons and even fire departments. Despite the bloody consequences of open borders, the Bush Pentagon allowed llegal aliens to enter the military. The grievance lobby has plied the Muslim jihadist-as-victim narrative for nearly a decade now. They prevail. In June, Muslim domestic terror suspect Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad went on another shooting spree at an Arkansas recruiting station that left one serviceman dead. The Obama Justice Department response: to redouble its efforts to use "criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans." Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. How did Fort Hood happen, obtuse Washington asks. Simple: Blind diversity equals death.»

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood (2)

Outra perspectiva, mais crítica, sobre o discurso de Obama:

«The violence at Fort Hood, President Obama told mourners on Tuesday, was "incomprehensible." The "twisted logic that led to the tragedy," he reiterated, may be "too hard to comprehend." (...) [T]he Obama administration is suffering a willful failure of comprehension. What exactly is so hard to comprehend? Fort Hood jihadist Maj. Nidal Hasan made his means, motives and inspiration all too clear for those willing to see and hear. In his 2007 slide presentation to fellow Army doctors on "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the Military," Hasan spelled it out: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!" Hasan exposed the deadly tension between his adherence to Islam and his service in the U.S. military. Slide 11 stated: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." Slide 12 cited Koranic sanctions for killing fellow believers. And Hasan made clear he wasn't alone among Muslim soldiers who "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly." (...)»

Malkin vê nas palavras de Obama, onde eu vi reconhecimento implícito de uma motivação religiosa, uma tentativa de negar essa possibilidade por ser alegadamente imcompreensível e irreligiosa em si mesma.

Exéquias das vítimas de Fort Hood

Notável discurso do presidente Obama, reconhecendo implicitamente que o ataque de Fort Hood foi um acto de jihad. Pena que não o tenha dito com mais clareza. Eis as passagens nas quais me parece que esse reconhecimento é patente:

«(...) 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. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice — in this world, and the next. These are trying times for our country. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the same extremists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans continue to endanger America, our allies, and innocent Afghans and Pakistanis. In Iraq, we are working to bring a war to a successful end, as there are still those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that Americans and Iraqis have sacrificed so much for. (...) We are a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses. And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln's words, and always pray to be on the side of God. (...) Here, at Fort Hood, we pay tribute to thirteen men and women who were not able to escape the horror of war, even in the comfort of home. Later today, at Fort Lewis, one community will gather to remember so many in one Stryker Brigade who have fallen in Afghanistan. (...)»

Nos primeiro parágrafo citado, Obama reconhece as motivações religiosas do ataque, seguindo-se uma referência às guerras em curso que parece enquadrar o ataque; no último parágrafo, Obama equipara as vítimas de Fort Hood às do Afeganistão. Um discurso no qual Obama parece admitir o carácter jihadista do ataque - pondo-se a coberto dos que exigem realismo e firmeza -, sem, no entanto, comprometer o seu estatuto de Nobel e príncipe da paz, não alienando a sua base eleitoral pacifista e apaziguadora do Islão. Infelizmente, sem surpresas, Obama também já disse que tudo pode não ter passado de um acto de loucura individual. Estimulação contraditória? Esperemos que o presidente saiba agir em conformidade com as conclusões que parece tirar, embora, conhecendo a sua forma de fazer política, receie que tudo isto não venha a passar de mais um belo discurso. sem consequências práticas no que diz respeito às políticas da sua administração. Entretanto, sigamos as investigações e as discussões sobre este ataque terrorista, por exemplo via Jihad Watch. Via Hot Air.

Infiltração jihadista (13)

«Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.»

Bastante instrutivo, como que avisando os seu camaradas de armas para o perigo que ele próprio constituía. Como advertência para um ataque iminente, só falta mesmo exortar a audiência a converter-se.