«Se quereis xariá, voltai para a cova infernal a que chamais país, de onde viestes

«If you want to live under sharia law, go back to the hellhole country you came from or go to another hellhole country that lives under sharia law,” said Kanwar»
In http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=30542

Na mesma peça do Calgary Herald, o mesmo indivíduo diz:
«"The fact is, Canada has an enviable culture based on Judeo-Christian values - not Muslim values - with British and French rule of law and traditions and that's why it's better than all of the other places in the world. We are heading down a dangerous path if we allow the idea that sharia law has a place in Canada. It does not. It is completely incompatible with the idea and reality of Canada,"
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Corbella+change+tune+official+multiculturalism/4268151/story.html#ixzz1E40fy3fq»

Pergunta conclusiva: o que aconteceria a um professor universitário canadiano não-muçulmano se proferisse afirmações deste teor?

Amplify’d from www.religionenlibertad.com

Mahfudh Kanwar, miembro del Congreso Islámico Canadiense y  Profesor Emérito de Sociología en el Mount Royal University de  Calgary ha dicho a una docena de familias que recientemente emigraron a Canadá y que están exigiendo que la Louis Riel en Winnipeg School Division exima a sus hijos de los programas de música y las de educación física mixtas por razones religiosas, que si queréis la Shari á, volveros al país infernal de donde procedéis.

Las familias musulmanas recién llegadas a Canadá creen que la música es anti Islam, al igual que los talibanes también lo creen, motivo por el cual la prohíben a toda la población de Afganistán,  y exigen que en las clases de educación física los niños tienen que estar separados de las niñas, incluso en los cursos de primaria.

El distrito escolar canadiense está tratando de encontrar una forma de adaptar el plan de estudios a los deseos de estas familias, en lugar de que estas familias se adapten a dinámica normal de la escuela y cultura canadiense.

El miembro del Congreso Musulmán Canadiense Mahfudh Kanwar asegura que tiene algunas ideas mejores:

"Yo les digo, esto es Canadá, y en Canadá se enseña música y educación física en nuestras escuelas. Si no os gusta, iros.  Si queréis vivir bajo la Shari´a, regresad al país infernal de donde procedéis o a otro país infernal que viva bajo la ley islámica.” "Los inmigrantes a Canadá deben ajustarse a Canadá, no al revés", argumenta. Él deja claro, que como la mayoría de los canadienses, que se complace y disfruta de Canadá, que  tiene, literalmente, ciudadanos de cada país y rincón del mundo, ya que este país se ha enriquecido enormemente. Pero es el multiculturalismo oficial - la política de Estado "que consagra la mentira" que todas las culturas y creencias son de igual valor y de igual validez en Canadá que se oponga. "El hecho es que Canadá tiene una cultura envidiable, basada en los valores judeo-cristianos - no en los valores musulmanes -. Con el dominio de la ley británica y francesa y suss tradiciones y por eso es mejor que todos los otros lugares d el mundo.  Estamos bajando por un camino peligroso si permitimos que la idea de que la Shari´a tiene un lugar en Canadá. No. Esto es totalmente incompatible con la idea y la realidad de Canadá ", afirma Kanwar, que en la década de 1970 fue el fundador y presidente de Pakistan-Canada Association y un gran fan del multiculturalismo oficial. Kanwar dice que su opinión cambió cuando empezó a oír a la gente que se unió a su grupo. Ellos hablaban mal de Canadá, no estaban interesados en conocer a los canadienses o incluso en el aprendizaje de una de sus lenguas oficiales. Ellos crearon guetos culturales y el gobierno canadiense, incluso ayudó a financiarlos. Read more at www.religionenlibertad.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bqck7

M. Phillips: a aliança islamitas-progressistas e o ódio ao Ocidente

Amplify’d from www.melaniephillips.com

The future of Egypt following the departure of President Hosni Mubarak remains opaque.

No one can currently predict whether it will end up as a democracy with free elections, a military dictatorship, or an Islamic theocratic tyranny.

But the Western Left has known one thing for certain from the very start of the protests: that the tyrannical dictator Mubarak had to go, that the protesters in Tahrir Square were all on the side of freedom and that the convulsions presaged a joyous new dawn of democracy and human rights.

This was despite the serious risk of an Islamist takeover in Egypt, with the consequent extinction of human rights for the Egyptians worse than anything under Mubarak’s clearly repressive regime.

And it was also despite the fact that opinion polls have suggested that many, if not most Egyptians harbour Islamist, anti-Western and ferociously anti-Jewish ideas.

Nevertheless, Western progressives were shouting for regime change. At which point it began to seem that, like Alice, one had somehow been transported through the looking-glass.

For during the past seven years, Western liberals have fulminated without remission that George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair were criminally out to lunch to pretend that democracy could ever come to Iraq through ousting a dictator.

The neo-con article of faith, that the Arab or Islamic world, could or should embrace democracy and human rights, was held up as an example of cultural imperialism, racist bigotry or insanity, or all three.

But suddenly everyone in the bien-pensant world has apparently become a neo-con.

Nor do the double standards stop there. When the people of Lebanon made their pitch for democracy against the crushing oppression of Hezbollah, Western bien-pensants were totally indifferent.

When the people of Iran made their pitch for democracy against the savage cruelties of the Islamic regime, the bien-pensants were totally indifferent. But when the Egyptians took to the streets, the bien-pensants all but wetted themselves with excitement.

What was the difference? If the Lebanese and Iranians had succeeded, the West would have been strengthened. But the risk still remains that the canny Muslim Brotherhood will bide their time before pouncing and coming to power in Egypt, which would of course furnish another major threat for the free world.

And this is the most frightening thing of all in this back-to-front universe: the way in which the West has sanitised the Muslim Brothers and even, in the case of the Obama administration, actually tried to push them into power.

When it wasn’t flip-flopping over whether Mubarak should stay or go, the White House first said it wouldn’t mind if the Muslim Brothers became part of the Egyptian government.

Then it urged the inclusion of ‘important non-secular actors’ — code for the Muslim Brothers — in a ‘more democratic’ Egypt. And then it was revealed that its proposal for the immediate transfer of power called for the transitional government to include the brotherhood.

What madness was this? The Muslim Brothers’ goal is to Islamise the world. They are religious fascists.

While certainly there are millions of Muslims around the world who do want to live under democracy, the Brothers are totally against any secular rule at all and stand for an extinction of human rights.

They are fanatical Jew-haters. In the 1930s they were effectively created as a political force by the Nazi Party, with which they formulated a final solution for Palestine by ridding it of its Jews, an agenda continued today by their offshoot, Hamas.

Today, they are no less the mortal enemies of the free world. Their leaders have declared war on America, gloating that the US is ‘experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise’, and that ‘resistance is the only solution’.

They support al-Qa’ida terrorism ‘against the Americans and the Zionists’. They declared that after Mubarak they would dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.

They support Hezbollah, make overtures to Iran, and openly employ a strategy of simulating moderation to gain power though democratic means in order to destroy democracy.

If Egypt is eventually taken over by the brotherhood, Jordan will be next, and both will turn into Iran/Gaza in a matter of a few years. Oh, and the Brothers are also busy Islamising Britain and America.

Yet on both sides of the pond, significant elements of the political and defence establishment have decided that the Muslim Brothers are basically peace-loving, sensible, pragmatic chaps who are useful allies against the men of violence.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the double standards of the Left result from its deep hatred of the Western society whose basic values they wish to overturn.

Whether during the French Revolution or the Stalinist purges, the Left has repeatedly sided with the extinction of human freedom and refused to accept the monstrous evidence of its own credulousness.

Among political and defence elites, moreover, the stranglehold of multicultural victim culture, the influence of revisionist ’scholars’ such as John Esposito or Karen Armstrong who sanitise Islam, and the deep desire to take the path of least resistance — plus the reflexive view that the real threat to the world is not the Islamic jihad but the state of Israel — means that the establishment meets the Left on the same side of the looking-glass.

Has there ever been a civilisation more bent on collective suicide than the contemporary West? Read more at www.melaniephillips.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aqbq4

Reino Unido: «Cameron do Partido Conservador mas não é conservador» segundo M. Phillips

Excerto.
Não deixe de ler na íntegra.

Amplify’d from www.melaniephillips.com

On countless occasions, David Cameron has declared that he is a tremendous fan of the institution of marriage. So big a fan, it now becomes clear, that he generously intends to bestow its status and privileges far beyond what most people consider marriage actually to be.

Time and again, the Tory leader has used his promise to strengthen marriage so as to reassure people that he was fully committed to defending this core value of conservatism.

Now, however, it is becoming all too plain that he is signing up instead to the wilder extremes of political correctness.

Indeed, he is planning to go further than even New Labour dared to tread.

For it was revealed yesterday that ministers are planning to change the law to allow homosexual couples to ‘marry’ in religious ceremonies, including in church.

Gay partnership ceremonies in other venues will also be allowed for the first time to contain a religious element, such as hymns or readings from the Bible. These unions will then be called ‘marriage’.

For sure, this change doesn’t force religious institutions to introduce such ceremonies; whether they do so is up to them.

But the Government’s position is anything but neutral. For it implicitly endorses the idea that there is nothing wrong with overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

As such, the Government will be cutting the ground from under the feet of religious traditionalists. And what if churches refuse to conduct such a travesty of a marriage ceremony? Presumably, they would then risk being sued for ‘discrimination’.

Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.

Once again, we have to wonder at the way in which a politically motivated faction within a tiny minority of the population — for many gay people do not approve of this ideological gay rights agenda — is now running public policy.

This is a truly terrifying totalitarian mindset from which the country cries out for deliverance. Yet, far from defending people against such bullying and seeing off the cultural subversives who are voiding morality of all meaning, Mr Cameron is going even further down this road.

Pinch yourself — a Conservative Prime Minister effectively endorsing the idea that upholding Biblical morality and the bedrock values of Western civilisation is bigotry.

He may be a Conservative, but he is no conservative. True conservatives seek to conserve what is most precious in a society and defend it against those who would destroy it.

Mr Cameron will apparently declare today that his programme is a moral one. Is this his idea of morality — to erode society’s core values?

The so-called ‘culture war’ now raging between those determined to destroy Western moral codes and those struggling to defend them is simply the most urgent domestic issue we face.

Despite the heroic efforts of Iain Duncan Smith to restore the importance of marriage to social policy, Mr Cameron has shown that in this war he himself is simply on the wrong side. Read more at www.melaniephillips.com

 

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

Raymond Ibrahim: «A crise de identidade do Egipto»

Amplify’d from pajamasmedia.com

Egypt’s future begins when Egyptians see themselves as Egyptians — not Arabs, and certainly not Islamists.

With Egypt’s “July Revolution” of 1952, for the first time in millennia, Egyptians were able to boast that a native-born Egyptian, Gamal Abdel Nasser, would govern their nation: Ever since the overthrow of its last native pharaoh nearly 2,500 years ago, Egypt had been ruled by a host of foreign invaders — Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and Brits, to name a few.  After 1952, however, Egypt, it was believed, would finally be Egyptian.

Yet, though Nasser was Egyptian, the spirit of the times that brought him to power was Arab — Arab nationalism, or “pan-Arabism” — the theory that all Arabic-speaking peoples, from Morocco to Iraq, should unify. (Along with Nasser, the tide of pan-Arabism also brought to power Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, Syria’s Hafez Assad, and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.)

The revolution significantly Arabized Egypt. That Egypt’s official name became the Arab Republic of Egypt — as opposed to simply the Republic of Egypt — speaks for itself. Whereas before 1952, one could have spoken of a distinctly “Egyptian” character and identity, after it, this identity gave way to an Arab identity. From there, it was a short push to an Islamic identity. Or, as Egyptologist Wassim al-Sissy recently put it, the revolution “erased the Egyptian character, which had been known for its tolerance, love, freedom, and so on. The revolution created a nation of slaves.”

My Egyptian-born parents, who personally lived through the 1952 revolution before immigrating to America, often reminisced on this change. Growing up I used to hear how pre-revolution Egypt was absolutely nothing like it is now. According to them, because it was under British rule, it was freer and more secular; hardly any women wore the hijab; Alexandria was something of a “mini-Europe.” Indeed, if you look at pictures taken in 1940s Egypt and compare them to pictures from today, you might think the former were taken in Europe, the latter in Arabia.

In short, Egyptians saw themselves first and foremost as Egyptians. Certainly no Egyptians would have referred to themselves as “Arabs” — a word back then that connoted “lowly bedouins” to Egyptian ears. (After all, for Egyptians to think of themselves as “Arabs,” because their first language is Arabic, is as logical as American blacks thinking of themselves as “English,” because their first language is English.) In fact, in the decades preceding the revolution, there was a Pharaonist movement, led by influential thinkers like Taha Hussein, which sought to define and promote a distinctly Egyptian character.

Today, as Egypt rocks with revolution, it is poised to assume an even more alien identity. Enter the Muslim Brotherhood: if the 1952 revolution Arabized Egypt, a Brotherhood takeover will thoroughly Islamicize it, thereby taking it even further away from its roots. Whereas the Arab nationalists of Egypt maintained remnants of the Egyptian character — their Islam was notoriously lax — the Salafist brand of Islam promoted by Egypt’s Brotherhood since its founding in 1928 is thoroughly alien to Egypt.

For example, as opposed to the Egyptian Arab nationalist, who takes great pride in his nation’s ancient heritage, today’s Egyptian Islamist exults in rejecting and condemning it, calling the pharaohs “infidels” and “tyrants” (according to the terminology of the distinctly Arab Koran), and even trying to destroy Egypt’s proudest treasures — as we have seen with the recent attacks on Egypt’s museums — hardly the behavior of someone who thinks of himself as an “Egyptian.”

Born in America, I often returned to Egypt, beginning in 1974, when I was a year old. My experience of Egypt’s evolving identity differs from my parents’: whereas they watched the Arabization of Egypt, I have been observing its Islamization. Yet, from personal experience, I also know that hardly all Egyptians share the Brotherhood’s ideology: for starters, there is a significant Christian minority, the Copts, who clearly have the most to lose should the Brotherhood come to power; then there are the many secularists. Put differently, a great many revolting in the streets of Cairo are doing so for mundane reasons — food and jobs — rather than to implement sharia law (which, incidentally, is already a “principal source of legislation” in Egypt’s Constitution).

The problem, however, is that, along with having a strong base of direct support, the Muslim Brotherhood is especially poised to assume leadership simply because many Muslims, while indifferent to the Brotherhood’s ideological vision, have come to trust them. After all, Hamas’ famous strategy of endearing the people to it by providing for their basic needs was learned directly from its parent organization: Egypt’s Brotherhood.

Thus, as turmoil engulfs Egypt, it is well to remember that, fundamentally, who the Egyptians see themselves as will determine who they will be. Egypt’s future begins when Egyptians see themselves as Egyptians — not Arabs, and certainly not Islamists.  This is not to say that Egyptians should resurrect the pharaonic language, dress like Imhotep, and worship cats. Rather, as Taha Hussein and others till this day maintain, the Egyptian identity needs to be resurrected, thereby allowing all of the nation’s sons and daughters to work together for a better future — without the dead weight of foreign elements, namely Arabism or, worse, Islamism.

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum, the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and a guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College. Read more at pajamasmedia.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aqb8h

Perspectivas para Israel e as relações com o Egipto na era pós-Mubarak

Breve excerto.
Leia tudo:

Amplify’d from sultanknish.blogspot.com

For 33 years the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel were used as proof that negotiated accords could and would bring peace in the Middle East. But the peace accords could not outlast Sadat and his VP Mubarak. With Sadat assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Mubarak driven out by a Brotherhood-Leftist alliance, the peace accords have proven themselves to be every bit as useless as the critics said they were.

The argument that the overthrow of Mubarak would not lead to an Islamist state was based on the liberal secular figureheads like Nour and ElBaradei. But ElBaradei and Nour are allied with the Brotherhood. While the liberals have contending candidates and parties, the Muslim Brotherhood has a single chain of command. The Brotherhood couldn't beat Mubarak, but it's child's play for them to play divide and conquer, turning into kingmakers and eventually into kings. Chaos is in their interest. The Communists and Nazis didn't take power because they were the most popular choices, they were just the most organized movements in a chaotic political landscape. While Soros's sweethearts wrangle and agitate, the Brotherhood will form their coalitions and wait in the wings. Hezbollah outwaited the Cedar Revolution. The Brotherhood will outwait the Jan 25th uprising and sweep in when the ordinary Egyptian begins to long for someone to restore order. That someone will either be the military or the Brotherhood. There are no other choices. Read more at sultanknish.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aqb55

«De Tahrir a Teerão»

Longo excerto.
Da administração norte-americana espera-se coerência, firmeza e frontalidade:

Amplify’d from frontpagemag.com

Posted By Stephen Brown

While Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak’s resignation last Friday caused tremors in Western capitals due to the potential for a Muslim Brotherhood power-grab, the Egyptian president’s stepping down is paying an unexpected dividend. The unrest that induced radical political change in Egypt is now spreading to other Middle Eastern countries, including Iran.

Starting last Friday, the day of Mubarak’s resignation, hundreds of students in Yemen reignited protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saleh, like Mubarak, has ruled his country for 30 years and his government is also regarded as being just as venal and corrupt. Inspired by Mubarak’s stepping down, the students are demanding their president’s resignation, and have clashed with pro-Saleh supporters and police, shouting: “Our demands are clear. Go out, Saleh.”

Bahrain, a small Arab island state off the coast of Saudi Arabia, is also experiencing political disturbances. On Sunday, demonstrators fought with police who responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. The New York Times reports that the protesters were native Shiites, who make up 70 per cent of Bahrain’s population of one million (about half are foreign workers) and form the country’s least privileged class. The Shiites believe the country’s ruling Sunni elite discriminate against them in “housing, education and governance” and have for years been demanding extensive structural changes in government, which is run by a royal family under King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.

But it is in Iran where events have taken a sweet, ironic turn. While numbers are unclear, The New York Times reported an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 demonstrators took to the streets on Monday in solidarity with the events in Egypt and to protest against the Iranian state’s well-known domestic repression. And like in Yemen and Bahrain, Iran’s government security forces dealt with the protesters in brutal fashion.

“The conspirators are nothing but corpses,” Hossein Hamadani, a commander in the Revolutionary Guard was quoted in The Times as saying. “They will be dealt with severely.”

It was only last week that Iran’s rulers were praising the street demonstrations in Egypt, calling them an Islamic revolution that was imitating the ayatollahs’ 1979 revolution. They obviously never considered that the radical changes they were witnessing in Egypt could ever make an appearance within their own borders. Unacquainted with freedom, the Iranian theocracy is oblivious to the fact that freedom has no boundaries. And after spending so many years exporting revolution, the ayatollahs never considered their sinister activity could ever become a two-way street.

Iran faced an uprising by its people in June, 2009. Rigged elections sparked what has come to be called the “Green Revolution” that saw tens of thousands of Iranians take to the streets in massive demonstrations to demand regime change. But the ayatollahs and their security forces held firm and the protests were quelled through “shooting demonstrators, mass trials, torture, lengthy jail sentences and even executions of those taking part.”

The Obama administration suffered severe criticism for its lack of support for the 2009 Iranian uprising, so it was quick off the mark to encourage Monday’s anti-government demonstrations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cautioned the Iranians about the use of force and indirectly called for a regime change.

“We wish the opposition and the brave people in the streets across Iran the same opportunity that they saw their Egyptian counterparts seize in the last week,” she said.

Iran has warmly greeted regime change in Egypt and Tunisia as well as disturbances in other Arab countries not because they represent an Islamic liberation movement, as the Iranian leaders maintain, but rather because the downfall of Mubarak and the erosion of other hard-line Sunni regimes constitute a defeat for American foreign policy.

“Despite all the (West’s) complicated designs…a new Middle East is emerging without the Zionist regime and U.S. interference, places where arrogant powers have no place,” Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told a crowd in Tehran on Friday.

Mubarak’s resignation was especially significant for Iran, since Egypt is not just America’s chief Arab ally in the Middle East, but also has been Iran’s main opponent in the Islamic world the past few decades. The principle reason for Iranian enmity towards Egypt was the peace deal Egypt made with Israel in 1978. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who signed the peace treaty, responded to Iranian animosity by granting the deposed shah of Iran asylum. Iran, in turn, was so happy with Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981, it named a street in Tehran after his murderer. The ayatollahs also gave refuge to members of the assassin’s family.

“Official Iranian media have for over three decades vilified Egypt’s ruling elites as the “Camp David” regime,” writes Mahan Abedin in Asia Times.

A power vacuum, or at least a weakening of authority in other American-allied Arab countries like Jordan and Yemen, which face an Iranian-backed revolt by Shia tribes, would also be hailed by Iran, since new regimes may be less hostile. The mullahs would also see strategic opportunities in a destabilised Sunni block to advance Shiism at the expense of Sunni Islam, and for Iran to become the leader of the Islamic world.

The Obama administration was not on top of events in Tunisia and Egypt and now only enjoys spectator status in the Middle East. But due to the demonstrations in Iran, inspired by Mubarak’s resignation, it can still play a pro-active role. By supporting and encouraging the Iranian unrest, at a minimum the mullah regime would hopefully be kept off balance and kept from interfering in events in the Sunni Arab countries by backing extremists, for example, or by committing terrorist acts. Many young Iranians, like their counterparts in Egypt and Tunisia, are also poor, unemployed and desire an end to oppression and a better life. Not to take advantage of this would perhaps squander the last opportunity the White House has to regain some of the ground in the Middle East it has so disastrously lost. Read more at frontpagemag.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aqb24

Jihad: não matar inocentes! Mas o que quer dizer «inocentes»?

Quando tratamos de assuntos relacionados com o islão torna-se necessário, sempre, esclarecer certos conceitos, porque algumas palavras que, para os ocidentais, têm um determinado sentido muito claro, não querem dizer o mesmo no islão, quer por razões culturais, quer por razões de estratégia e logro, previstas nas doutrinas e prática da taqiyya [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_for_Islam] e kitman [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_for_Islam#Kitman].
O conceito «inocente» no islão quer dizer algo de muito diferente, porque os judeus e os cristãos não são inocentes: para além de serem culpados de descrença, são apoiantes - voluntariamente ou não - dos regimes que «lutam contra o islão». Donde resulta que podem ser mortos em acção de jihad:

Amplify’d from www.religionenlibertad.com

El Islam prohíbe matar a inocentes, pero si permite asesinar a civiles judíos y cristianos dentro del Yihad

El 5 de febrero del 2011, el líder del grupo salafista-yihadista con sede en Gaza Jamaat Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad, jeque ´Ahed Ahmad ´Abd Al-Karim Al-Sa´idani, conocido como Abu Al-Walid Al- Maqdisi, emitió un fatwa en respuesta a una pregunta sobre la postura del Islam en referencia al asesinato de civiles inocentes en el curso de las "operaciones de martirio", tales como los ataques del 11 de Septiembre en Nueva York y el 11-M en Madrid.. El "fatwa", publicado en el portal del destacado ideólogo salafista Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, declaró que mientras el Islam prohíbe el asesinato de inocentes, judíos y cristianos pueden ser blanco, porque no son inocentes, sino "combatientes agresivos". El jeque árabe-palestino Abu Al-Walid Al-Maqdisi, añadió que incluso el peligro de herir a musulmanes inocentes no justifica detener o retrasar las operaciones del Yihad, ya que el Yihad contra los infieles debe continuar. Lo siguiente son extractos del fatwa:

Si por ´gente inocente´ el investigador quiere decir civiles judíos o cristianos que viven en el país en el cual la operación Yihad se llevará a cabo, entonces deberían saber que estas personas fundamentalmente no son inocentes. Por el contrario, son parte de los combatientes agresivos a los actos de sus dirigentes en dinero, opinión y consejo. Incluso si algunos de ellos son inocentes, pero no se pueden separar de los agresores a quienes los muyahidines tienen como objetivo - los musulmanes estudiosos han determinado que, en caso de un ataque sorpresa, es permisible asesinar a todos ellos, es decir, los que estaban allí, junto con los que están siendo blancos,...

http://www2.memri.org/bin/espanol/ultimasnoticias.cgi?ID=SD357711 Read more at www.religionenlibertad.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aqay8

Jihad contra os EUA: encontrada «arma de destruição massiva»

Mais uma cortesia da Religião da Paz?

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org

"'A weapon of mass destruction was found in the U.S.': Shock confession of Customs officer," by David Gardner in the Daily Mail, February 14 (thanks to Pamela Geller, who has much more here):

A port official has admitted that a 'weapon of mass effect' has been found by 'partner agencies' in the U.S., raising major questions over a possible government cover-up.

The disturbing revelation came in an interview with San Diego's assistant port director screened by a television channel in the city.

The Customs and Border Protection Department tried to dampen speculation over his remarks, but doubts remained over whether he had inadvertently revealed a dirty bomb plot to attack the U.S. mainland.

Concern over a secret WMD bust came after U.S. cables made public by the Wikileaks whistleblower website revealed terror groups were plotting a 'nuclear 911.'

In the interview screened by San Diego's 10News, Al Hallor, assistant San Diego port director, said 'weapons of mass effect' had been found, although he did not specify exactly where or what they were.

Reporter Mitch Blacher asked Mr Hallor: 'Do you ever find things that are dangerous like a chemical agent or a weaponised device?'

'At the airport, seaport, at our port of entry we have not this past fiscal year, but our partner agencies have found those things,' the customs official replied.

'So, specifically, you're looking for the dirty bomb? You're looking for the nuclear device?' asked Mr Blacher.

'Correct. Weapons of mass effect,' said Mr Hallor.

'You ever found one?' asked Mr Blacher.

'Not at this location,' Mr Hallor said.

'But they have found them?' asked Mr Blacher.

'Yes,' said Mr Hallor.

'You never found one in San Diego though?' Mr Blacher asked.

'I would say at the port of San Diego we have not,' Mr Hallor said.

'Have you found one in San Diego?' Mr Blacher asked.

The interview was then interrupted and cut short by a public relations official before Mr Hallor was able to answer the question.... Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq92e

Revolução no Irão? H. Clinton diz que «iranianos merecem mesmos direitos que egípcios»

Esperemos que venha a ser esta a orientação da Casa Branca liderada (?) por Obama perante os acontecimentos de hoje em Teerão.
Se bem que, dados os antecedentes de Junho de 2009 - altura em que Obama optou por se abster de apoiar as manifestações a posição -, e, mais recentemente, as reviravoltas perante os acontecimentos no Egipto [http://nadadistoenovo.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-de-historia-comenta-actuacao.html, http://nadadistoenovo.blogspot.com/2011/02/administracao-obama-incompetente-no.html e http://nadadistoenovo.blogspot.com/2011/02/obama-extrema-esquerda-norte-americana.html], não se pode ter muita esperança.

Amplify’d from www.jpost.com

Clinton: Iranians deserve same rights as Egyptians By ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF  02/14/2011 21:39 US secretary of state expresses support for tens of thousands of opposition protesters who fill Tehran's streets; "needs to be commitment to open up political system, to hear voices of opposition, civil society."

Photo by: AP

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday expressed support for the tens of thousands of protesters in Iran's capital, saying they "deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in Egypt and are part of their own birthright." Speaking to reporters after meeting House Speaker John Boehner, Clinton said she and others in [US President] Barack Obama's administration "very clearly and directly support the aspirations of the people who are in the streets" of Tehran. RELATED: Dozens of Iranian opposition supporters arrested in Tehran Calls for reform intensify throughout Arab world Barak: Egyptian events not like ’79 Iranian Revolution She spoke of the "hypocrisy" of the Iranian government that hailed the protests in Egypt but has tried to suppress opposition at home. She said there "needs to be a commitment to open up the political system, to hear the voices of the opposition and civil society." Clinton's comments come after security forces arrested dozens of Iranian opposition supporters Monday while they were taking part in a banned rally in Tehran to support popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, an Iranian opposition website said. "Witnesses say in some parts of Tehran security forces arrested dozens of protesters," opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi's Kaleme website reported. Read more at www.jpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq8th

Professor de história comenta a actuação da administração Obama face à revolução no Egipto

Veja também este postal de há dias.

Irão: manifestações reprimidas (3)

Amplify’d from www.jpost.com

Security forces, opposition protesters clash in Tehran By ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF  02/14/2011 17:41 Eyewitnesses say tear gas used to to disperse pro-Egypt demonstration; protesters chant "death to the dictator"; security forces cut phone lines, blockade opposition leader's home.

Iran's opposition called for a demonstration Monday in sympathy with a popular uprising in Egypt that forced the president there to resign. Iran's security forces cut phone lines and blockaded the home of an opposition leader in attempts to stop him attending the planned rally.

The massive security clampdown is reminiscent of the backlash that crushed a wave of protests after the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009. But opposition supporters revived a tactic from the unrest, shouting "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great, from rooftops and balconies into the early hours Monday in a sign of defiance toward Iran's leadership. The renewed protests coincided with plans for demonstrations across the Gulf in tiny Bahrain, which has cultural and religious ties to Iran because of its majority Shi'ite Muslim population. Kaleme.com, an Iranian reformist website, said police stationed several cars in front of the home of Mir Hossein Mousavi ahead of the demonstration called for later Monday in central Tehran. Mousavi and fellow opposition leader Mahdi Karroubi have been under house arrest since last week. Witnesses said riot police, many on motorbikes, also fanned out across central Tehran to prevent any demonstration. The witnesses spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of reprisals from authorities. The uprising in Egypt opened a rare chance for the political gambit by Iran's opposition. Ahmadinejad claimed the Egyptians who toppled president Hosni Mubarak took inspiration from Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought down a Western-backed monarchy. Iran's opposition movement used the comments to push the government into a corner and request permission to march in support of Egypt's protesters. Iranian officials quickly backpedaled and said no pro-Egypt rallies were allowed — bringing sharp criticism from the White House and others. On Sunday, the US State Department sent Twitter messages in Farsi in the hopes of reaching social media users in Iran. The first message told Iranians: "We want to join in your conversation." The following posts noted the inconsistencies of Iran's government supporting Egypt's popular uprising but stifling opposition at home. The US called on Iran "to allow people to enjoy same universal rights to peacefully assemble, demonstrate as in Cairo." Last week, the State Department launched an Arabic Twitter feed in an effort to communicate with the Egyptian protesters. Read more at www.jpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq80n

Irão: manifestações reprimidas (2)

Amplify’d from www.haaretz.com

Dozens arrested in Iran as opposition protesters, police clash

Iranian security forces fire tear gas to scatter thousands of people at a banned rally backing Egypt, Tunisia uprisings.

Iranian security forces clashed with supporters of the opposition in the central city of Isfahan on Monday and arrested dozens of protesters at a banned rally backing uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, a witness said. "There were clashes between security forces and protesters in Isfahan and dozens of people were arrested," the witness told Reuters by telephone.

Iranian security forces fired tear gas to scatter thousands of people marching on a Tehran square. "There are thousands of people marching ... not chanting slogans ... Security forces fired tear gas to disperse them near Imam Hossein square," said the witness.

The march was a test of strength for the reformist opposition, which had not taken to the streets since Dec. 2009, when eight people were killed. But Iranian security forces are still unlikely to hesitate to use any means to stop protests. Large numbers of police and security forces wearing riot gear were stationed around the main squares of the capital and traveling in pairs on motorbikes around the city. There were minor clashes at some points across the sprawling capital city of some 12 million people, witnesses said. Mobile telephone connections were down in the area of the protests.

"There were thousands of people walking towards Azadi Square. There were some scuffles. I saw smoke, but I am not sure if it was tear gas or not," said another witness. The demonstrators marched down Enghelab and Azadi (Freedom) streets, leading to Azadi Square, a traditional rallying point for protests in central Tehran dominated by a huge white marble arch. Hundreds of marchers also gathered in the cities of Isfahan and Shiraz, witnesses said. But security forces surrounded the houses of opposition leaders Mirhossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi preventing them and Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard from joining the march, their websites said. "Mirhossein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard are still trying to leave their house and join the protests... but security forces are preventing them. Security forces have even threatened Mousavi's guards to not allow them to leave the house by any means," the Mousavi's Kalame website said. Mousavi and Karroubi took advantage of official Iranian backing for the huge street protests in Egypt and Tunisia to call their own demonstrations in solidarity, but authorities refused their request. The opposition nevertheless renewed the call for the rally. Iranian authorities have warned the opposition to avoid creating a "security crisis" by reviving protests that erupted after the vote, the biggest unrest in Iran since the 1979 revolution.

Protesters at a banned opposition rally in Tehran, February 14, 2011. Read more at www.haaretz.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq7ru

Irão: manifestações reprimidas

Os iranianos querem livrar-se da teocracia que os oprime. Já em 2009 se manifestaram sem poder contar com os apoios que agora se congregaram à volta dos protestos no Egipto.
Veremos qual será agora a posição dos EUA, praticamente omissos na altura, e dos media e movimentos progressistas, tão entusiastas com os insurgentes egípcios:

Amplify’d from www.ynetnews.com

Report: Iran police fire teargas at protest marchers

Police, security forces disperse demonstrators supporting popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia; protestors chant 'Mubarak, Ben-Ali - now it's your turn Khamenei.' Opposition leader Mousavi's house blockaded

Dudi Cohen, Reuters

Iranian security forces fired tear gas to scatter thousands of people marching on a Tehran square in a banned rally on Monday inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, a witness said.   "There are thousands of people marching ... not chanting slogans ... Security forces fired tear gas to disperse them near Imam Hossein square," said the witness.    The march was a test of strength for the reformist opposition, which has not taken to the streets since Dec. 2009, when eight people were killed. But Iranian security forces are still unlikely to hesitate to use all means to stop any protest.   Large numbers of police and security forces wearing riot gear were stationed around the main squares of the capital and travelling in pairs on motorbikes around the city.

There were minor clashes at some points across the sprawling capital city of some 12 million people, witnesses said. Mobile telephone connections were down in the area of the protests.   "There were thousands of people walking towards Azadi Square. There were some scuffles. I saw smoke, but I am not sure if it was tear gas or not," said another witness.   Protestors chanted "Mubarak, Ben-Ali – now it is your turn Sayyed Ali (Khamenei)" and "Death to the dictator."

Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi took advantage of official Iranian backing for the huge Arab street protests to call their own demonstrations in solidarity, but authorities refused their request.

The opposition nevertheless renewed the call for the rally. Iranian authorities have warned the opposition to avoid creating a "security crisis" by reviving protests that erupted after the vote, the biggest unrest in Iran since the 1979 revolution.   Hundreds of demonstrators marched down Azadi (Freedom) and Enghelab streets, both forming a wide boulevard leading to Azadi Square, a traditional rallying point for protests dominated by a huge white marble arch, in central Tehran.    Hundreds of marchers also gathered in the central city of Isfahan, witnesses said. Police and state security men were prepared in Tehran.   "There are dozens of police and security forces in Vali-ye Asr Avenue ... They have blocked entrances of metro stations in the area," a witness told Reuters earlier, referring to a large thoroughfare that cuts through the Iranian capital.

Iranians take to the streets (Photo from Twitter)

Mousavi's website, Kalame, said the opposition leader and his wife Zahra Rahnavard were unable to join the march.   "Mirhossein Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard are still trying to leave their house and join the protests... but security forces are preventing them. Security forces have even threatened Mousavi's guards to not allow them to leave the house by any means," the website said.   So far there have been no reports of injuries, but some 10 protestors were arrested.   Iranians reported that the internet service has been slowed down, apparently as part of the regime's efforts to prevent the distribution of anti-government content online.   Social networks such as Twitter and Facebook are blocked, as are the major news sites. The cell phone network in central Tehran has been shut down as well.

'The nation's demands' Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia an "Islamic awakening", akin to the 1979 revolution that overthrew the US-backed shah.   But the opposition see the unrest as being more similar to their own protests following the June 2009 election which they say was rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   The Revolutionary Guards, fiercely loyal to Khamenei, put down the 2009 protests. Two people were hanged and scores of opposition supporters jailed.   Turkish President Abdullah Gul, on a visit to Tehran, called on Middle Eastern governments to listen to the demands of their people, although he did not refer to Iran directly.   "We see that sometimes when the leaders and heads of countries do not pay attention to the nations' demands, the people themselves take action to achieve their demands," Gul told a news conference alongside Ahmadinejad.   Any use of heavy force to stop the marches in Iran during Gul's visit could be an embarrassment for Turkey.   However, Ankara, officially an ally of the West, was one of the first governments to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his 2009 re-election and is seeking to triple the volume of trade with its neighbor despite UN, US and EU sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear activity.

Iranian authorities deny doctoring the 2009 election results and accuse opposition leaders of being part of a Western plot to overthrow the Islamic system.

"They are incapable of doing a damn thing," the hardline Kayhan newspaper quoted Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi as saying, echoing words used by the late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to refer to the United States. The opposition is "guided by Iran's enemies abroad", Moslehi said. Read more at www.ynetnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/aq7m8