In chestiunea terorismului islamic…

Aceasta caricatura a ajuns, pe buna dreptate, celebra! 🙂
Interesant insa e si altceva: „Journal irresponsable”!! 🙂

Mi s-a parut foarte interesant comentariul lui Marian, de la postarea precedenta, care afirma ca:

„Zi-mi mie onorabile musiu , pe und e ai umblat matale , prin orice port din Algeria sau Tunisia sau Maroc…ai vazut matale vreu singur european …crestin zis si eventual declarat ca atare , sa le solicite alora ca femeile lor sa nu mai poarte acea burca sau ca ei musulmanii sa nus-i mai trateze femeile ca pe niste vite care au obligatia sa faca copii si …placere lui , barbatului ? Pai si atunci , pe cale de consecinta…cum isi permit ei sa ne impuna noua RESPECT fata de un lider religios care nicio macar nu-i lider de-al nostru ??? Asta nu-i …tupeu jegos ?Daca eram in locul francezilor …nu 3 milioane d e e xemplare din noul numar Charlie Hebbon (Hebdo, n.m) …Redivivus ci 6 milioane tipaream si minim trei milioane …puneam aviatia FRANTEI LIBERE sa le a runce in loc de bombe peste Yamen sau Libia !!! Ce-ar fi facut ma rog in acest caz mizerabilii aceia de arabeti , ar fi declarat razboi Europei ? Ma indoesc de asta …nu si-ar permite , tipii sant poate buni luptatori insa…sant in mod sigur niste degenerati . „

Lucrurile sunt bine punctate!

Insa acest terorism, pe langa victime, are si alte consecinte neplacute pentru noi. Interesant este ca aceste consecinte neplacute sunt doar pentru noi. In schimb centrele de comanda ale terorismului islamic sunt bine mersi. Ati ghicit: Legea Big Brother! Cu alte cuvinte, ce vrea tusica Victoria (ei, care? Nuland, desigur! 🙂 ) e legea asta. Ca sa ne supravegheze pe toti! Cu alte cuvinte, lucrurile stau cam asa: suntem sanctionati noi pentru teorismul altora! Eu chiar nu mai inteleg…

Iresponsabil cum sunt, indraznesc sa-mi pun intrebari!! In zilele noastre, de limitare a libertatii, nu e corect din punct de vedere politic ceea ce fac!

L-am auzit si pe Presedintele Hollande cum vorbea despre Islam. Gresit. Spunea, daca am inteles bine, ca: „Islamul nu e incompatibil cu Democratia”. Eu cred ca trebuie sa intelegem bine lucrurile: Islamul – adica aceasta doctrina religioasa, politica, legislativa – este incompatibil cu Democratia. Reformele pe care le-a facut Ataturk in Turcia nu se puteau niciodata face sub semnul Islamului. Lucrul asta e aratat si de partidul lui Ataturk – Partidul Popular Republican – care in dreptul religiei are scris: secularism. Eu cred ca trebuie sa intelegem lucrurile, noi, adica UE, SUA si NATO, pentru a nu face erori si mai mari decat le-am facut pana acum, care sa conduca la si mai mult terorism. Dupa parerea mea, politica SUA, spre exemplu de sprijinire a unor fractiuni teroriste, chiar si membre Al-Qaeda, in lupta cu Bashar Al-Assad, in Siria, a reprezentat o eroare, asa cum a fost si sprijinul Fratiei Musulmane, in Egipt, inlocuita pe urma rapid cu un regim militar. Dintr-o asemenea eroare s-a nascut ISIS, dar si Al-Qaeda! O asemenea nenorocire, precum ISIS – Statul Islamic – trebuie neaparat combatuta pana la anihilare deoarece se constituie intr-un permanent pericol pentru Europa si civilizatia europeana, iar pe de alta parte comite literalmente atrocitati in Irak! Iata ce am citit pe saitul Iraq Body Count:

Iraq 2014: Civilian deaths almost doubling year on year

Se arata ca:

„An overview of the year’s violence

First published  1 Jan 2015 

2014 Summary

17,049 civilians have been recorded killed in Iraq during 2014 (up to Dec 30). This is roughly double the number recorded in 2013 (9,743), which in turn was roughly double the number in 2012 (4,622). These numbers do not include combatant deaths, which even by the most cautious tallies have also seen a sharp rise in 2014.

The conflict in Iraq that began with the US/UK invasion of March 2003 has continued now for nearly twelve years. During this period, not a single day has passed without Iraqi civilians being killed. The year 2014, however, reflects an increase in violence to levels not seen since the worst years of 2006 and 2007. The rise of the group Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL) as a major force in the conflict, as well as the military responses by the Iraqi Government and the re-entry of US and Coalition air forces into the conflict, have all contributed to the elevated death tolls.

1. Civilians killed in 2014, and compared with earlier years

During 2014 Iraq Body Count (IBC) recorded 17,049 civilian deaths from violence. This is the third highest civilian death toll after 2006 and 2007, and some months exceeding even those years’.

2012	2013	2014
January	531	357	1076
February	356	360	930
March	377	403	1009
April	392	545	1013
May	304	888	1027
June	529	659	2534
July	469	1145	1481
August	422	1013	1592
September	400	1306	1956
October	290	1180	1797
November	253	903	1468
December	299	983	1166
Totals	4622	9742	17049

While the post-invasion period in Iraq has never been free of conflict-related violence and associated civilian casualties, the years 2010-2012 saw a relative reduction in levels of violence, with annual civilian death tolls ranging from 4,116 to 4,622, and the monthly rate ranging from a low of 218 to a high of 529. (Those three years nonetheless saw more than 2,500 deadly bombing incidents, an average of two a day.) This relative stability ended in early-to-mid 2013, after which the death tolls have sometimes risen dramatically.

There has been no monthly civilian death toll lower than 900 since July 2013, with most being much higher: June (2,534), September (1,956) and October (1,796) being higher than any monthly toll since 2007 (and each in fact higher than the equivalent month in 2007). And as at the end of 2014, the monthly average for the second half of the year – that is, excluding the June peak – stands at over 1,500.

That June peak of 2,534 was the month that marked the beginning of the ISIS offensive. Actions by, and by others in reaction to, ISIS appear only to have worsened an existing trend in rising civilian casualties.

2. Geographic distribution in 2014

The greatest number of deaths have been in Baghdad, Ninewa, Salah al-Din and Anbar provinces (governorates), which between them accounted for close to 80% of civilian deaths. Baghdad had the highest number of deaths, with 4,767 civilians recorded killed this year, while Anbar had over 3,600 civilians killed, half of them (1,748) by the Iraqi military in daily air strikes, primarily in and around Falluja. In Salah al-Din and Ninewa civilian killings by ISIS have contributed significantly to the death toll. All four of these provinces have seen a marked increase in the number of deaths over 2013, with Baghdad almost doubling and the other three provinces more than doubling.

BAGHDAD: 4,767
ANBAR: 3,623
SALAH AL DIN: 2,550
NINEWA: 2,367

3. Perpetrators: Deaths identified as caused by coalition or Iraqi airstrikes, and ISIS action.

Among the 17,049 civilians recorded killed, many deaths were attributable to the actions of specific armed groups while the perpetrators of many killings remain unknown. 1,748 civilians were reported killed by Iraqi military air strikes, while 4,325 were killed by ISIS. A further 10,858 civilians were reported killed by unidentified actors, where it has not been possible to establish which of the major actors, or possibly other, less well-identified groups, were involved. 118 civilians were reported killed by US-Coalition air strikes, the first time since 2011 that civilian deaths have been directly attributable to US-Coalition actions.

4. Combatants killed: Rough totals, and a discussion of the large variation.

Deaths among Iraqi military and among insurgent groups such as ISIS have increased dramatically in 2014, in relation to previous years. Besides a clear increase in total numbers, 2014 has also seen for the first time a sharp divergence in reported totals of combatant deaths between some of the common sources that have been used to track casualties in the conflict for many years. Some of these sources include the daily tracking by Agence-France Presse (AFP), official statistics released by Iraqi government ministries, and aggregated media reports. In past years, numbers from these sources have varied, with some higher or lower than others for any given time period or category of casualties, but have usually not been very far apart. 2014 has seen a wide gulf emerge in the totals for combatant deaths, with totals from AFP and official statistics suggesting roughly 4,000-5,000 combatants killed during the year, while aggregated media reports on the other hand, with each report of combatant deaths taken at face value, suggesting totals of roughly 30,000.

It is not possible for us to say at present what number in this range is correct or most credible, in part because IBC has not analysed the reporting on combatants in as much detail as we do with civilians, but also due to considerable uncertainty with the reliability of some of the reports. The lower range of 4-5,000 is likely too low due to limitations in information gathering. On the other hand, we think that a face value total of approximately 30,000 derived from aggregated media reports is likely too high.

Many of the media reports that make up this total rely either on military sources in the field providing numbers for ISIS/insurgent deaths, or on ISIS/insurgent sources providing numbers for military deaths. At the same time, it is clear from many of these reports that the numbers reported are often not precise “body counts” tied directly to specific incidents or specific victims, as is typically the case with civilian deaths, but rather are rough estimates of how many enemy fighters were killed in a particular operation, or over a given time-frame. These estimates generally originate from parties with an interest in advancing the perception that they are making significant gains over their enemy, and may therefore be prone to exaggeration.

For such reasons, the most that can currently be said is that reporting on combatant deaths during 2014 ranges from about 4,000 to 30,000. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two numbers, but neither can be ruled out at present.

5. Total deaths in 2014 (civilian and combatant) and cumulative total since 2003

Combining the 17,000 civilian deaths recorded by IBC with the above wide range of combatant deaths of 4,000-30,000, suggests a total of between 21,000 and 47,000 people have been killed in war-related violence in Iraq during 2014, making it one of the three worst years of the conflict that began nearly twelve years ago.

Total cumulative reported deaths for the entire period 2003-2014 passed 200,000 during 2014, and presently stand at 206,000 using the more conservative end of the range for combatant deaths in 2014. Over 150,000 (around 75%) of these were civilian. 1

Iraq Body Count 2003-2014	150,772
Iraq War Logs new ‘Civilian’ and comparable ‘Host Nation’ remaining 2004-2009 – central estimate	9,720
Iraq War Logs ‘Host Nation’ combatant 2004-2009 – central estimate	5,575
Iraq War Logs ‘Enemy’ (minus IBC overlaps) 2004-2009 – central estimate	20,499
Iraqi combatants killed March-May 2003	4,895
Insurgents killed June-December 2003	597
Insurgents killed May 2004	652
Insurgents & Iraqi soldiers killed March 2009	59
Insurgents & Iraqi soldiers killed 2010–2014	7,948
TOTAL IRAQI	200,717
US & Coalition military killed 2003–2014	4,807
US & Coalition foreign contractors killed 2003–2014	468
TOTAL	205,992

Concluding remarks

There is a new brutality on the ground and renewed attacks from the air. ISIS and the Iraqi army have caused thousands of civilian deaths this year, while the international coalition has yet again been responsible for civilian killings, for the first time since US withdrawal three years previously. Iraqi civilians are once again being killed by all sides.

As the pattern of violence shows, following the withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011 and the subsequent implementation of anti-Sunni policies by the Iraqi government, between 2012 and 2013 the death toll more than doubled. In 2014, largely in connection with the rise of ISIS and the military response to it, the death toll has nearly doubled again, making 2014 the third most lethal for civilians (after 2006 and 2007) since the 2003 invasion. The continuing killing of civilians has marked the entire period from 2003-2014: sometimes rising, sometimes falling, but never ceasing.”

Aici nu e vorba de o simpla caricatura! Nu e vorba nici de ce spunea Papa, ca daca cel mai bun prieten i-ar zice ceva de mama sa, atunci i-ar da, desigur, un pumn. Noi trebuie sa intelegem bine despre ce e vorba. E vorba de ceea ce inseamna cu adevarat terorismul islamic. Aceste atrocitati arata ce inseamna Al-Qaeda, ISIS, aceste organizatii care nu stiu decat sa ucida in numele Islamului!! In Irak, numarul civililor morti s-a dublat de la an la an. Civili irakieni. Musulmani. De la retragerea trupelor US de la sfarsitul anului 2011 lucrurile au ajuns sa se inrautateasca si victimile printre populatia civila sa creasca foarte mult. Ideea este ca ISIS vrea prin teroare si crime contra umanitatii sa impuna un Stat Islamic in regiune! Un Stat Islamic care va fi in mod perpetuu pepiniera terorismului si care va ameninta mereu Uniunea Europeana si SUA.

Lovitura pe care trebuie s-o dam terorismului consta, in primul rand, in a distruge centrele sale de comanda.

Iar acest ISIS trebuie neaparat anihilat, distrus daca dorim ca pericolul terorist sa scada simtitor in Europa! De asemenea SUA cat si UE au obligatia, inclusiv cea morala, de a se amesteca in treburile interne ale unor state din Pen. Arabica, spre exemplu Yemen. Tocmai pentru a nu se ajunge la catastrofe ca in Siria si Irak. Ce ar insemna acest amestec? Ar insemna, de pilda, distrugerea filialei Al-Qaeda din Yemen! Si mie mi se pare riscant sa eliberezi suspecti de terorism detinuti la Guantanamo Bay si sa-i trimiti in Yemen sau Oman, adica ceea ce fac americanii care ne dau noua lectii legate de legea Big Brother. Adica Obama ce face? Trimite intariri teroristilor! Ce sens are asta? Mai trebuie precizat ca Obama nu a admis ca in atacurile de la Paris e vorba despre terorismul islamic. Intr-un mod aproape invariabil actuala Administratie de la Casa Alba evita sa spuna lucrurilor pe nume, si anume ca de terorism islamic e vorba, adica atacuri cu motivatie islamica!! Administratia Obama a jucat si joaca in continuare politica strutului: in viziunea sa terorismul islamic nu exista. Iar daca spui ca exista, tu, cel care atragi atentia, esti susceptibil de a fi un pericol la „securitatea nationala a US”. Aceasta politica dusa de Obama, de a se face ca nu exista terorism islamic, intretine si da libertate, dupa cum lesne se poate constata – si atacurile de la Paris stau drept marturie -, la o intensificare a terorismului islamic.

Terorismul actual este aproape in exclusivitate (asta ca sa nu spun de-a dreptul in exclusivitate) de natura islamica. Si trebuie spus ca victimile sale pot fi si musulmani. Ideologia unor organizatii teroriste precum ISIS sau Al-Qaeda ii numeste pagani pe musulmanii care traiesc si muncesc cinstit atat in Europa cat si in SUA. Si pot fi victime la fel de bine ca unul care nu e musulman, ca cei de la Charlie Hebdo. Iar aceasta Administratie Obama nu doreste sa ia atitudinea cuvenita fata de acest tip de terorism, care ameninta SUA si nu numai, ba mai mult: il si acopera. In felul asta nu se poate lupta cu acest terorism si nici nu poate fi anihilat.

Mie mi-a placut ca George Maior a recunoscut ca „securitate absoluta nu exista” – nici Legea Big Brother nu-ti poate furniza un asemenea nivel de securitate. Asa este. Insa tot atat de adevarat este ca impotriva terorismului se poate lupta si ca terorismul poate fi anihilat daca se face ceea ce trebuie. Din pacate, Casa Alba nu face ceea ce trebuie, iar Obama ii obliga atat pe Hollande cat si pe Cameron sa ia pozitii, in aceasta problema, apropiate de pozitiile sale. Iar discursul lui Hollande, de care pomeneam mai sus, deriva dintr-o astfel de punere in practica a „doctrinei Obama”. Iata si motivul pentru care nu se face, practic, nimic concret. Ci s-a incercat intr-un mod condamnabil abaterea atentiei opiniei publice de la pericolul terorismului.

Interesant un articol din New York Observer:

How to Stop Terrorism: Be Like Bush

Care arata, printre altele, ca:

„For all of his other failings, in those weeks after September 11^th, George Bush answered that question. His answer was that Islamist terrorism was caused by a lack of political freedom in the Muslim Middle East. Without domestic legitimacy, malignant and semi-malignant regimes built legitimacy in other ways, like hating the West. The solution was then to build democracies in the least fertile places on earth like Iraq and Gaza. It was a breathtakingly—perhaps hopelessly—ambitious answer, but thirteen years later still the most hopeful one we’ve got. […]

The problem is that there are many, many people unhappy with American foreign policy in the world, and virtually the only ones who commit terrorist attacks in response are Muslims. Tibetans do not blow up Chinese markets, and citizens of Cote d’Ivoire do not shoot up French cafes. And, it should be pointed out, Frenchmen irritated with American foreign policy—of which there have been a few—do not bomb the marathon.”

Spune ca raspunsul la problema dat de George Bush, avand loc si evenimentele de la 11 septembrie, a fost urmatorul: terorismul islamic este cauzat de o lipsa de libertate politica in Orientul Mijlociu Islamic. Fara legitimitate, regimurile maligne si semi-maligne isi construiesc legitimitatea in alte feluri, spre exemplu prin ura fata de Vest. Solutia ar fi fost sa se construiasca democratii in locurile cele mai aride din lume, precum Irak sau Gaza. Apoi spune ca multi oameni sunt nefericiti de politica externa dusa de America in lume, insa numai musulmanii raspund prin atentate teroriste.

Interesant ce spun publicatiile de opozitie din America, va recomand acest articol din American Thinker:

Coming to America: A Terrorist Cell Near You

By Lauri B. Regan

Se arata ca:

„British Islamist Anjem Choudary made one of the most important and revealing yet little-mentioned statements in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack last week.  The imam tweeted, “Muslims love the Messenger Muhammad more than their parents, children and even themselves!  Why don’t people understand?”

Why, indeed?  Perhaps Choudary’s statement was ignored because he is, after all, a “radical” Muslim cleric, viewed by the politically correct as someone on the fringes who does not represent “true Islam” (a term favored by not only Barack Obama, but also by al-Qaeda and ISIS).  But if world leaders do not wake up from their dangerously naïve, self-induced comas just as the terrorist sleeper cells are stirring from their slumber, Charlie Hebdo and the terror attacks at the Parisian kosher butcher shop and Sydney chocolate store will become commonplace across the globe for many years to come.

Obama continues to whitewash the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.  He initially refused to call the Charlie Hebdo massacre “terrorism.”  Once he finally did, his statement ridiculously claimed that the attack was the “senseless violence of a few.”  Similarly, in his September speech addressing efforts to combat ISIS, he stated, “small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm.”

If the multitude of Islamic terrorist groups metastasizing across the entire globe, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezb’allah, Al Aqsa Brigade, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban are “small groups,” we should sleep well at night knowing that Obama’s A team is at the helm.  Unfortunately, the jayvee squad that Obama promises has been decimated actually sponsored the latest terror attacks and is on the rise.  But coming from the guy who promised that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor (among other doozies), making false and grandiose assertions to sell the country a bill of goods is simply par for the course (for our Golfer-in-Chief).

So how pervasive are the views of the barbarians otherwise known as Islamists?  Brigitte Gabriel explained:

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today – of course not all of them are radicals!  The majority of them are peaceful people. The radicals are estimated to be between 15 to 25 percent. … But when you look at 15 to 25 percent of the world Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of western civilization. That is as big as the United States. So why should we worry about the radical 15 to 25 percent? Because it is the radicals that kill. Because it is the radicals that behead and massacre.

After pointing out that the majority of Germans, Russians, Chinese, and Japanese were peaceful people, and yet radicals from those countries still murdered tens of millions of people, Gabriel observed, “The peaceful majority were irrelevant.”

What is relevant is what our government is ignoring.  At TheReligionof Peace.com, the array of statistics on the world’s Muslim population’s support of terrorism and violence in defense of Islam is eye-opening – at least for those who are not willfully blind to reality.  It includes a List of Islamic Terror Attacks for the Past 30 Days.  When it becomes necessary to keep a running list of attacks every 30 days, the “religion of peace” is looking a lot less peaceful.  And linked with the statistics on support among the general Muslim population, the claim that this hate is an aberration becomes even more disingenuous.

It is arrogance when someone with little knowledge of a topic takes to the bully pulpit and makes false assertions as if an expert. When our president does so, it is dangerous.  When he does so with national security, he becomes an accomplice to an existential threat to our country’s long-term viability.  When Obama claims, “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents,” he is willfully shirking his responsibility to defend our nation.

Obama’s platitudes and assertions that only a rogue “few” are terrorists, fly in the face of reality.  The terrorists are not psychopathic or crazy.  They are motivated and determined and thinking lucidly about how to destroy Western civilization.  It is Obama and the politically correct who label honest, clear-minded realists Islamophobic and not operating with a full deck.  They are functioning in a state of denial.

On Monday, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf claimed, “There are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes” and promised that “we’re going to focus on all of the different kinds of extremism.”  Eric Holder also exhibited this psychosis when he finally admitted on Sunday that the U.S. is at war with “terrorists” but refused to utter the term radical Islam and continued to push the lie that “core” al-Qaeda has been “decimated.”  White House press secretary Josh Earnest put the icing on the cake when he explained on Tuesday that the reason the administration does not use the term “radical Islam” is because they believe it is not accurate, “I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification [the terrorists] have cited that I think is illegitimate.”  The terrorists have no problem identifying their enemy and developing a plan to defeat them.  The people entrusted with our national security whitewash, pander, and lie.

Particularly telling is that both French president Hollande and Obama called the Charlie Hebdo murderers cowards.  In this they are simply wrong, and believing so will do nothing to win the war against Islamic fundamentalism.  For victory, we must have leaders who identify the enemy and understand how they think.  Our leaders do not acknowledge with whom we are dealing.

Obama has spent six years extending his open hand to Iran’s mullahs and the past year negotiating a deal that will likely lead to Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.  He is operating on the assumption that the Islamists in Iran think the same as Westerners who value freedom of religion, free speech, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Iranians understand who is sitting across from them at the negotiating table, and they are outmaneuvering Team Obama, just as Bill Belichick did to the Baltimore Ravens this past weekend.

Day after day, the killing goes on.  Day after day, the mainstream media, academia, the politically correct left, and policymakers do their best to ignore it. Would that they had read The Art of War rather than Rules for Radicals; then we might actually be safe.  In his work, Sun Tzu stated:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Barack Obama refuses to identify our enemy.  Even as he was finally forced to mention the term “Islamist jihadist sympathizers,” in the context of this week’s hacking incident, he did so reluctantly and with absolutely no recognition that we are fighting a war pitting civilization against barbarism.  In a recent speech, Egyptian President el-Sisi recognized that Islam has become a “source of worry, danger, killing, and destruction in the whole world” and called for a “religious revolution” to modernize the faith.  It is quite extraordinary that Muslims leaders are speaking out while the leader of the free world continues to prevaricate.

Furthermore, Obama is clueless about the American people, whom he was entrusted to protect.  He believes we are a bunch of religious fanatics clinging to our guns while touting the real religious fanatics as a peace-loving people.  He believes we are a country of one-percenters, fat cats, racists, morons, and colonialists while he claims that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam.

Our enemy recognizes that we are under the leadership of the man who bowed to the Saudi king, praised Islam before the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, jailed an innocent man for making a YouTube video about Islam, and took to the world stage to “boldly” pronounce, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”  They see a tired people who did not have the fortitude to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and who elected a weak leader twice despite his trashing of our allies and reaching out to our enemies.

Radicalized individuals are flocking to the battlefields in Syria and Iraq and returning as trained jihadist to the West.  According to a U.N. report, more than 15,000 foreign fighters have entered these two countries to train with ISIS.  Obama refuses to withdraw their passports.

Obama’s immigration edicts may open the floodgates to Islamists at the same time that Europe is trying to figure out how to close theirs and deal with the mess they created.  A recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies concluded that the rise in immigrants from Muslim countries poses a national security threat.  The administration announced that it will be expanding resettlement of Syrian refugees, as well hiring Fatima Noor, a Muslim woman who dons a hijab, as a special assistant at Homeland Security tasked with bringing in more Muslim immigrants.  With at least six Muslim Brotherhood operatives working for the administration (and the recent appointment by Nancy Pelosi of the first Muslim representative to the House Intelligence Committee), this new addition should be no surprise.

The trial of the accused Boston Marathon bomber began last week.  So now we have the Tsarnaev brothers and the Kouachi brothers.  All in the family from a culture of people who strap suicide vests on their children and send them off to murder in the name of Allah.  Golda Meir recognized decades ago that “[w]e will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

Currently making the rounds on the internet are quotes of Winston Churchill regarding Islam and Muslims. More important to recall are Churchill’s quotes warning of the rise of the Third Reich that fell upon deaf ears.  He stated:

I cannot recall at any time when the gap between the kind of words which statesmen used and what was actually happening in many countries was so great as it is now. The habit of saying smooth things and uttering pious platitudes and sentiments to gain applause, without relation to the underlying facts, is more pronounced now than it has ever been in my experience.

Upon moving into the White House, Obama returned to the British a bust of Winston Churchill that had been displayed in the Oval Office.  Were we reading a Shakespeare play, that act would serve as a clear foreshadowing of Obama’s willful blindness and destiny to repeat history’s tragedies.  Churchill recognized that:

… [w]hen the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

If we are going to win the war against Islamic fundamentalism, we need a change in leadership with people who know our enemy, who are not so cowardly as to fear being honest about who that enemy is and what motivates him to kill, and who love America and Western civilization more than they love themselves and Islam.  The man currently in the White House is certainly not that person.”

Articolul este destul de lung, de aceea voi incerca sa traduc doar aceasta fraza:

„Barack Obama refuses to identify our enemy.  Even as he was finally forced to mention the term “Islamist jihadist sympathizers,” in the context of this week’s hacking incident, he did so reluctantly and with absolutely no recognition that we are fighting a war pitting civilization against barbarism.  In a recent speech, Egyptian President el-Sisi recognized that Islam has become a “source of worry, danger, killing, and destruction in the whole world” and called for a “religious revolution” to modernize the faith.  It is quite extraordinary that Muslims leaders are speaking out while the leader of the free world continues to prevaricate.”

adica:

„Barack Obama refuza sa-i identifice pe inamicii nostri. Chiar daca in final a fost fortat sa mentioneze termenul: „simpatizanti islamisti jihadisti”, in contextul incidentului terorist din aceasta saptamana, el s-a aratat atat de reluctant si nu a recunoscut deloc ca luptam un razboi care pune fata in fata civilizatia si barbaria. Intr-un recent speech, Presedintele Egiptului, el-Sisi, a recunoscut ca Islamul a devenit o „sursa de ingrijorare, pericol, ucidere si distrugere a intregii lumi” si a chemat pentru o „revolutie religioasa” care sa modernizeze aceasta credinta. Este pur si simplu extraordinar ca liderii musulmani vorbesc despre asa ceva, pe cand liderul Lumii Libere continua sa fie evaziv, echivoc in aceasta privinta.”

Asa este: e nevoie de o reformare a Islamului. Insa lucrul acesta nu poate fi facut atata vreme cat extremismul religios, Jihadul, are adepti, calauziti de centre de comanda care au o putere foarte mare in Lumea Islamica si care ordona ucideri si acte de terorism! Ar trebui sa intelegem ca asa cum stau lucrurile acum, nici vorba nu poate fi de democratie in Lumea Islamica si esecul Primaverii Arabe din Nordul Africii confirma acest lucru!

De ce terorismul islamic acum?

Mai trebuie aratat un lucru. In anii ’60-’70 intr-adevar nu se prea vorbea de terorismul islamic si nici nu exista fenomenul prezent asa cum este el astazi. Asta nu inseamna ca nu exista. Sa ne amintim de groaznicul atentat facut de Organizatia pentru Eliberarea Palestinei la Olimpiada de la Munchen, cand a fost masacrata delegatia israeliana. Si de aici ar trebui sa tragem concluzia sa fim mult mai prudenti cand e vorba de eliberarea teroristilor… Apoi putem sa ne referim si la razboaiele dintre Egipt si Israel. Insa daca terorismul islamic nu a fost atat de puternic precum cel de astazi, lucrul acesta se datoreaza in mare masura colonialismului. Este adevarat ca lupta popoarelor de sub dominatia unei mari puteri, tranformate in colonie a acesteia, precum lupta eroica a poporului algerian impotriva ocupantului francez, nu a avut neaparat o mare dimensiune religioasa, ci erau lupte de eliberare nationala. Sunt convins ca multi dintre cei ce citesc aceste randuri isi vor aminti de aceste pagini de Istorie. Insa statele acestea, cu o populatie islamica majoritara, au reusit sa stagneze din punct de vedere al dezvoltarii economice. Colonialismul avusese si un rol civilizator, fara de care aceste state ar fi ramas acum foarte mult in urma. Dupa inlaturarea colonialismului, facuta in general prin razboi, a trebuit sa urmeze reconstructia, fara indoiala, si atunci n-avea cum sa-ti stea capul la terorism. La acea vreme, statele socialiste au sprijinit lupta impotriva colonialismului si au dat ajutor noilor state iesite de sub dominatia straina. Dupa prabusirea comunismului a incetat si ajutorul si s-a vazut si o stagnare economica ce tindea sa se prelungeasca foarte mult. Cu o populatie in marea ei majoritate slab pregatita din punct de vedere profesional si, pe cale de consecinta, aflata la un nivel redus din punct de vedere intelectual si a carei viata este concentrata exclusiv in jurul Islamului, nu e de mirare ca extremismul islamic, Jihadul, a prins foarte usor la o asemenea populatie. Insa extremismul islamic, chiar daca (poate) era la o intensitate mult mai redusa fata de cum e acum, exista si atunci. Ma gandesc, de pilda, sunt sigur ca va amintiti, la asasinarea Presedintelui Anwar El Sadat la 6 octombrie 1981, dupa ce s-a angajat in negocieri cu Israelul, care au culminat cu semnarea Tratatului de Pace Egipteano-Israelian, pentru care a primit Premiul Nobel pentru Pace, in 1978, alaturi de Menachem Begin, prim-ministru al Israelului. Cf. articolului din Wikipedia despre Sadat, citat mai sus, cu exceptia Sudanului, toate Statele Arabe si Organizatia pentru Eliberarea Palestinei s-au opus eforturilor lui Sadat de a face pace cu Israelul, fara consultari prealabile cu Statele Arabe. Pe cale de consecinta, Egiptul a fost suspendat din Liga Araba din 1979 pana in 1989. Cine s-a opus, din interiorul Egiptului, politicii lui Sadat privind pacea cu Israelul? Da, v-ati prins: Jihadul Islamic din Egipt, desigur! Care avea printre membri si ofiteri superiori in structurile de securitate ale statului:

„Chief strategist of El-Jihad was Abbud al-Zumar, a colonel in the military intelligence whose „plan was to kill the main leaders of the country, capture the headquarters of the army and State Security, the telephone exchange building, and of course the radio and television building, where news of the Islamic revolution would then be broadcast, unleashing—he expected—a popular uprising against secular authority all over the country”.^[36]„

incerc sa traduc:

„Strategul sef al El-Jihadului a fost Abbud al-Zumar, un colonel in structurile de informatii militare al carui „plan era de a ucide pe principalii lideri din tara, sa captureze cartierul general al armatei si Securitatii Statului, cladirea telefoanelor, si desigur cladirile Radioului si Televiziunii, unde stiri despre Revolutia Islamica ar fi fost raspandite, declansand – el asa se astepta – o revolta populara impotriva autoritatii seculare (laice) in toata tara.”

Asa ca terorism era si in anii ’70, si inca foarte periculos, chiar daca nu se manifesta atat de acut ca acuma!! Un lider moderat si pro-vestic, cum era Sadat, era foarte greu de acceptat de catre acesti fundamentalisti care, iata, aveau oamenii sus-pusi in stat. De asemenea seicul Omar Abdel-Rahman – Seicul Orb -, condamnat pe viata pentru ceea ce se numeste in legislatia US seditious conspiracy, in legatura cu atentaul cu bomba de la World Trade Centre din 1993 – el ii teroriza, dupa cum insusi afirma, pe „dusmanii lui Dumnezeu” -, este cel care a dat fatwa ce aproba asasinarea lui Sadat. De asemenea o mare problema mi se pare cu aceste fatwa. De exemplu, Osama bin Laden a dat doua fatwa – 1996, 1998 – prin care interpreta Legea Islamica in sensul ca „musulmanii trebuie sa ucida civili si personal militar al Statelor Unite si din cadrul tarilor aliate pana cand vor retrage suportul dat Israelului si pana cand vor retrage fortele militare din tarile islamice” (v. aici si aici). Iata ce ne arata Wikipedia:

„The 23 February 1998 fatwa is the first known official order of the World Islamic Front. The fatwa calls upon each individual member of the existing Ummah to, „in accordance with the words of Almighty God, ‘fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,’ and ‘fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.'” The fatwa is widely regarded by terrorism experts as the founding document of the World Islamic Front.”

adica:

„23 februarie 1998 este data la care fatwa este cunoscuta pentru prima data ca ordin oficial al Frontului Islamic Mondial (Al-Qaeda, dupa unii experti, n.m.). Fatwa cheama pe fiecare membru al Ummah (al Comunitatii) ca, „in acord cu cuvintele Atotputernicului Dumnezeu, „luptati impotriva paganilor cu totii asa cum lupta ei impotriva voastra cu totii” si „luptati impotriva lor pana nu va mai fi zarva sau opresiune, si va prevala justitia si credinta in Dumnezeu”. Aceasta fatwa este in mod larg privita de catre expertii in terorism drept document fondator al Frontului Islamic Mondial.”

Evident, se pune problema ce calificare avea Osama bin Laden si acest Front Islamic Mondial ca sa dea aceste fatwa. Pentru ca asa oricine poate da nu stiu ce fatwa care sa treaca peste statul respectiv, peste legile tarii, peste conducatorii statului islamic respectiv prin care sa stipuleze orice ucideri, incalcari ale Dreptului International, orice acte de terorism etc. Se poate crea o nebunie intreaga in toata lumea din pricina unor astfel de oameni. De aceea este imperios necesar ca elementele moderate din Lumea Islamica sa condamne astfel de fatwa teroriste! Si ceea ce e si mai ingrozitor este ca aceste atentate teroriste pe care ei, teroristii, le fac in diferite tari sunt vazute ca mari victorii de catre populatia bastinasa din Yemen sau Egipt, nu-i asa? Uitati-va ce fatwa se dau in aceasta Lume Islamica:

„In 2012, Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a religious edict prohibiting contact and cooperation with foreign media outlets because they seek to “spread chaos and strife in Muslim lands.” He added that contacting foreign media outlets to “divulge the country’s secrets or address various matters” was tantamount to “treason and major crime.” He said that “It is not permissible and is considered betrayal and assistance to the enemies of Islam.” Also, “A believer has to help keeping security, that of his nation and community, and protecting his religion.”^[42] This fatwa is vague and itself is in need of another explanatory fatwa. Foreign media appears to have been singled out because it is mostly free and does not conform to Saudi Arabian government censorship. The fatwa uses the strongest possible terms (i.e., „haram” or unlawful, „treason,” „betrayal,” and „major crime.”) for the simple act of contacting the press. This fatwa needlessly endangers the lives of ordinary citizens and members of the media. It also threatens the financial interests of legitimate global business. In democratic societies, journalism and the media play an indispensable role in educating the public and combating corruption.”

Deci o fatwa impotriva presei, impotriva media straine, data de Marele Muftiu al Arabiei Saudite, impotriva contactului cu presa straina pentru ca provoaca „haos si lupta in teritoriile musulmane”, punand in pericol viata cetatenilor si a celor ce lucreaza in media, bineinteles amenintand si interesele financiare si legitime ale comunitatii de afaceri. Simplul contact cu presa este „tradare, crima majora, ilegalitate”. Aici nu e vorba de nu stiu ce caricaturi, ci un atac impotriva Presei Libere, un atac la adresa dreptului cetatenilor de a fi informati, pentru a izola si mai mult omul musulman de restul lumii. Iata ce fac asa-zisii lor „invatati”! Si aceasta fatwa a fost data in 2012…

Nu e de mirare ca in aceste tari islamice se nasc teroristi!

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.