Este corecta o asemenea atitudine?

SUA e zguduita de un nou atentat terorist, soldat cu 50 de morti, cel din Orlando, Florida. Insa iata ce a declarat Donald Trump pe twitter:

„Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!

If Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t say we should kill the women & children of terrorists he should admit he’s Muslim & resign!”

Un nou atentat foarte sangeros dupa cel de acum cateva luni de la San Bernardino (v. si aici)…

Uitati-va la figura lui Obama…

Autorul acestui atentat este Omar Mateen, un tanar de 29 de ani. Interesant este ca imediat inainte de a incepe atentatul, el a telefonat la 911, facand cunoscute legatura sa cu ISIS si  cu Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. De asemenea a facut referiri si la Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, autorii atentatului de la Boston. Spuneam in articolul despre atentatul de la Boston ca terorismul este o boala a zilelor noastre. Dupa 11 septembrie 2001 constatam cu ingrijoare si tristete ca au loc valuri de atentate teroriste nu doar in America ci si in Europa. Ar trebui explicat cum se face ca tineri precum acest Omar Mateen fac astfel de acte abominabile stiind ca la capatul lor isi vor pierde si ei viata! Un astfel de fenomen periculos se poate transmite prin contagiune, pare a fi o epidemie la nivel psihic in primul rand. Si observam ca, in general vorbind, sunt contaminati tineri musulmani in numele unei „nobile” cauze, cea a Islamului. Se pare ca o asemenea cauza „nobila” ce ar avea atributul absolutului le intuneca grozav mintea, ne mai putand face distinctia intre bine si rau, blocandu-le gandirea rationala si determinandu-i spre rau.

Atitudinea lui Donald Trump se situeaza pe un palier politic: un atac politic plin de repros la adresa Presedintelui in functie, Barack Obama. Pe de alta parte, „a ucide femeile si copiii teroristilor”, asa cum a declarat se constituie intr-o reactie de evidenta revolta. Insa punerea in practica a unei asemenea idei poate agrava situatia, asa cum ai turna, spre exemplu, benzina peste foc. Atitudinea corecta este cea de impunere si respectare a legii, aplicarea ferma a legii. Presedintele Obama a dorit sa indulceasca relatiile dintre SUA si Lumea Islamica. Acest lucru presupune sa fii ingaduitor, tolerant. Democratii au dorit integrarea acestora in societatea americana, Barack Obama s-a si exprimat in acest sens recent. Cu toate acestea, trecerea sub tacere a terorismului islamic ar putea fi interpretata drept tolerarea acestuia. Or, lucrul asta pune problema aplicarii ferme a legii, cu alte cuvinte poate ca n-ar trebui sa aplicam ferm legea – lucru ce reprezinta o greseala. Orice precadere in tratarea musulmanilor care comit astfel de crime abominabile ca si cum n-ar fi chiar atat de rau ceea ce fac trebuie, cred eu, respinsa. Integrarea lor nu se poate realiza printr-o tratare preferentiala a acestora. Si ei ar trebui sa inteleaga ca religia lor nu le ofera mai multe drepturi decat altor cetateni americani. Constitutia SUA le da dreptul sa-si exercite in mod liber religia. Insa trebuie, as spune eu, insistat pe faptul ca una e sa-si exercite in mod liber religia si altceva este sa si-o impuna prin crima, lucru ce trebuie pedepsit de lege. Ei trebuie sa ajunga sa inteleaga legea si Constitutia din SUA si sa priceapa ca in SUA nu se poate admite o legislatie bazata pe Sharia sau asemanatoare unor state islamice. Pentru ca fara a se stabili foarte clar astfel de lucruri nu se poate ajunge la o integrare a lor. Asa cum vad eu problema, astfel de lucruri nu au fost bine stabilite de la bun inceput. Spre exemplu: in SUA nu asculti de ordinul dat de nu stiu ce imam sau emir, ci de legea din SUA si de Constitutia SUA. Ei ar trebui, de pilda, sa inteleaga ca Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi nu are niciun drept sa dea ordin unui cetatean american, fie el si islamic. Daca astfel de lucruri nu sunt bine stabilite constiinta unui om este permanent intr-o stare de incertitudine. Iar o astfel de stare nu poate sa-i permita sa vada calea cea dreapta si de aceea el poate cadea usor prada unor influente nefaste, care il pot impinge spre crima si omor. Raspunsul cu violenta propus de Donald Trump nu are darul de a actiona asupra constiintei omului respectiv si nu induce sentimentul responsabilitatii morale fata de propria sa conduita, ci doar o stare de teama sau de frica. Insa poate provoca un raspuns echivalent si tot asa, ajungandu-se la o spirala a violentei, lucru care, foarte probabil, il si vizeaza teroristii si organizatiile teroriste precum ISIS sau Al-Qaeda.

Muslim ban

CNN

Trump: Muslim ban ‘just a suggestion’

By David Wright, CNN

Updated 1747 GMT (0147 HKT) May 12, 2016

„Donald Trump: Ban all Muslims from entering U.S. 02:28

Washington (CNN)Donald Trump, who issued a December press release „calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” said Wednesday such a ban „hasn’t been called for yet” and it was „only a suggestion.”

It’s the latest lightning-speed evolution for the real estate tycoon as he pivots from the provocateur who upended the Republican primary to a general election candidate preparing to square off with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

„We have a serious problem, and it’s a temporary ban – it hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it, this is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee told Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade Wednesday.

READ: Donald Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.

But when Trump first introduced the proposed ban back in December he explicitly said in both a speech and in a press release: „Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Paul Ryan condemns Donald Trump’s call to ban Muslims 01:09

Timing

Trump is scheduled to spend the day in Washington, meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has so far withheld endorsing the businessman, and Republican party officials in hopes of bridging the gap between them. Ryan and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus both swiftly condemned Trump’s call for a ban in December.

Trump’s proposal is „not who we are as a party” and violates the Constitution, Ryan had said in December.

„This is not conservatism,” he had said. „Some of our best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical Islam terror are Muslims.”

READ: Donald Trump: Rudy Giuliani for ‘radical Islam’ commission

Trump’s presidential rivals at the time had also slammed his proposal, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who has since endorsed Trump and been tapped to lead his transition team should he win the White House.

„This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don’t know what they are talking about. We do not need to resort to that type of activity nor should we,” Christie had said on the Michael Medved radio show. „What we need to do is to increase our intelligence activities. We need to cooperate with peaceful Muslim Americans who want to give us intelligence against those who are radicalized.”

Donald Trump defends Muslim ban proposal 01:09

 ‘Temporary’

Trump on Wednesday also put a new emphasis on the temporary nature of his proposed ban in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren.

„No, it was never meant to be – I mean that’s why it was temporary,” he said, when asked if he would consider backing off the controversial ban.

„Sure I’d back off on it. I’d like to back off on it as soon as possible, because frankly, I’d like to see something happen. But we have to be vigilant,” he said. „There is a radical Islamic terrorism problem that our president doesn’t even want to talk about.”

Trump was also pressed by Van Susteren on what kind of exceptions he might make to the „total and complete shutdown” he originally proposed. He pointed to Muslim military service members, while continuing to stress his desire to see the ban lifted once some sort of progress was made in the fight against terror.”(Muslim military members) would all come back,” he said. „I mean we have exceptions, and again, it’s temporary, and ultimately it’s my aim to have it lifted. Right now there is no ban. But I’d like to see – there has to be an idea, there has to be something.”As the presumptive GOP nominee explained, „Ideally you wouldn’t have the ban for very long. I mean, we just have to find out what’s happening.””

Ideea aceasta a D-lui. Trump de a interzice „complet si total”, dar temporar, cultul musulman pe tot cuprinsul SUA, pe care am inteles ca doreste sa-o aplice si retroactiv referitor la toti emigrantii musulmani:

„Experts say my Muslim Ban is useless here bc #Orlando terrorist was American. Not true! I’d apply it to ALL Muslim immigrants retroactively!”

are hiba ca e neconstitutionala si ca nu ar rezolva problema. Pentru ca ce ar insemna de a interzice „complet si total” cultul musulman? Ar insemna sa-l introduci intr-o stare de ilegalitate fortata de unde poate fi si mai periculos. El nu ar disparea ci ar actiona subteran. Lucru mult mai rau. De asemenea, cum ai putea stabili intr-o asemenea situatie cine e musulman si cine nu? Este ca si cum ti-ai crea o problema in plus. Cu totul altceva ar fi daca s-ar stabili, asa cum am spus mai sus, niste repere clare pentru musulmanii din America. Iar aceste repere nu pot fi decat Constitutia si legea americana pe care ei trebuie sa le inteleaga. Pentru ca acesti oameni nu au repere clare in societatea americana. Si in lipsa unor astfel de repere apeleaza la religia lor, la o forma violenta de exprimare, atata vreme cat constiinta este intr-o stare de incertitudine.

Insa as dori sa fac o precizare: ideea D-lui. Trump nu e chiar atat de absurda pe cat pare. Interzicerea cultului musulman in America i-ar furniza instrumentul legal prin care i-ar putea aresta sau ucide pe musulmanii extremisti, impunand cu forta domnia legii. Se pot mobiliza, spre exemplu, trupele SWAT care n-ar da nicio sansa niciunui extremist. Trump a si declarat ca trebuie actionat dur. Si o poate face. Administratia Obama nu a facut lucrul asta. Fara indoiala ca actiunea serviciilor secrete americane este indispensabila pentru a rezolva pe plan intern situatia. Insa trebuie actionat nu doar dur, ci si inteligent, pentru a nu provoca efecte adverse chiar mai periculoase.

Dar aici mai e o chestiune care nu trebuie pierduta din vedere: situatia din Orientul Mijlociu. Pentru ca, in primul rand, trebuie eliminata sursa de tensiune, iar aceasta sursa e acolo si se numeste ISIS. Cu alte cuvinte, atata vreme cat se mentine starea de instabilitate politica in Orientul Mijlociu – in special in Irak si Siria – sursa problemei ramane. Si in asemenea conditii problema cu greu poate fi rezolvata. America ar putea trimite din nou trupe in Irak, pentru a stabiliza situatia si a sprijini eforturile Guvernului Irakian de a impune legea pe tot cuprinsul tarii. Poate sa faca acest lucru trimitand trupe si in Siria. Cel care a comis un astfel de atentat nu era un nebun pe mana caruia a incaput o arma de asalt. Ci era un om ce avea legaturi cu ISIS, cu o structura organizata de terorism international. Pana cand aceasta structura nu va fi distrusa, problemele vor persista. De asemenea situatia din Libia e ingrijoratoare si trebuie desigur rezolvat acest lucru. In rest ramane desigur colaborarea cu serviciile secrete din alte tari, inclusiv musulmane, pentru a anihila astfel de retele teroriste.

Care e pozitia lui Hillary?

CNN

Hillary Clinton: I’ll say the words ‘radical Islamism’

„Clinton: It’s radical Islamism, but don’t demonize

(CNN)Hillary Clinton said Monday she’s not afraid to say „radical” Islam as she countered attacks from Donald Trump that she’s too politically correct to use the phrase.

„From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say,” Clinton said on CNN’s „New Day.” „And it mattered we got bin Laden, not what name we called him. I have clearly said we – whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I’m happy to say either. I think they mean the same thing.”

Clinton – who also reupped her call to restore the assault weapons ban – was forceful in dismissing Republicans’ criticism – vocally echoed by Trump – that President Barack Obama and Democrats won’t describe such terror attacks as „radical Islamic terrorism.”

Does it matter if Obama uses the term ‘Islamic terrorism’?

Clinton’s comments went further than she has before in the language she uses to describe radical Islam and swiftly undercut one of Trump’s central lines of attack against her regarding the fight against terrorism. Her interview Monday morning also notably separated the former Secretary of State from Obama’s approach – in his remarks from the White House on Sunday about the massacre, he never used the words „radical Islam” and he’s made it a point not to do so in similar past domestic attacks.

Trump was also interviewed later on „New Day” Monday morning about the Orlando attack, and repeated the charge that Democrats’ reluctance to say „radical Islamic terror” was hampering efforts to combat terror.

„The first thing you need is a president that will mention the problem. And he won’t even mention what the problem is,” Trump said. „Unless you’re going to say that, you’re never going to solve it.”

Trump then claimed Clinton was „afraid to use [the term] because President Obama doesn’t want her to” before host Christine Romans corrected him, pointing out Clinton had just used the term in the preceding interview. After Romans interjected, Trump replied, „She would love to use those words because almost everybody agrees that those words should be used.”

Donald Trump definitely turned 70 years old on Tuesday

In her appearance, Clinton also was quick to link the attack to the terror organization.

„This was a terrorist attack. ISIS appears to be claiming credit for it, whether it had anything to do with it or not – at a minimum, they seem to have inspired it,” Clinton told host Chris Cuomo.

And Clinton took a veiled swipe at Trump, who has proposed temporary banning Muslims from entering the United States, for targeting Muslims in his campaign rhetoric.

„What I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for our efforts to defeat this threat, is to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion,” she said. „That plays right into ISIS’ hands.”

Clinton hit Trump by name, saying, „I think that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is quite dangerous to our country.”

The presumptive Republican nominee, citing the Orlando attack, also repeated his warning that Muslim communities aren’t doing enough to self-police and report cases of extremism and radicalized individuals before attacks occur.

„The communities that we’re talking about, they know about this guy. They knew that this was tremendous potential for blow up,” Trump said.

„Right now we have thousands of people in the United State who have the same kind of hate in their heart as he had. And we have to know who they are,” he added.

Supreme Court to act on gun ownership cases

Trump also reiterated his opposition to accepting Syrian refugees, adding that terror problems „will only get worse.”

Clinton, in her interview calling the aftermath of the attacks a „time for statesmanship, not partisanship,” projected confidence in the United States’ ability to defend against future terror attacks.

„We have the resources, relationships and experience to get it done,” she said. „And this is a moment – for Republicans, Democrats, independents – for all Americans to work together as one team. It’s time for statesmanship, not partisanship. Our fellow citizens should expect that.”

And the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee made the case for stricter gun safety laws in the wake of the massacre, arguing that „common sense gun safety reform across our country would make a difference” while calling for the reinstatement of an assault weapons ban.

„We can’t fall into the trap that is set up by the gun lobby that says if you can’t stop every shooting in every incident you should not try to stop any. We did have an assault weapons ban for ten years. I think it should be reinstated,” she said.

House Democrats protest lack of action on gun legislation

On the other hand, Trump said that if people in Pulse had been armed, the scope of the tragedy would have been lessened.

„If you had guns in that room, if you had – even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist, where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had the same kind of a tragedy,” Trump said on CNN.

In a separate interview on Fox News’ „Fox and Friends,” also on Monday, Trump continued to criticize the Obama administration’s anti-terror efforts and even hinted at some hidden motivation for Obama.

„We’re led by a man who is very – look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot believe, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and he can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on,” he said.”

Reactia lui Hillary este, trebuie s-o recunoastem, destul de slaba. Sa nu demonizezi extremismul islamic, dar tocmai acest extremism este demonic – ca dovada ce se intampla! Pe de alta parte trebuie observat ca Administratia Obama a cautat sa fie corecta din punct de vedere politic trecand sub tacere realitatea, si anume extremismul islamic, cuvinte pe care s-a ferit sa le foloseasca. Iar Hillary recunoaste de abia acum ca despre asta e vorba!! Si asta dupa ce au mai fost atentate foarte sangeroase comse de musulmani in SUA. „From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say”, a spus D-na. Clinton – dar cum poti sa faci mai mult daca nu recunosti ca ai o problema? Iar daca recunosti ca ai o problema, de ce te feresti s-o numesti? Foarte slaba reactia lui Hillary! Pe de alta parte, trebuie subliniat ca nu grupurile de lobby interesate in vanzarea armelor de asalt sunt vinovate de tragedia care s-a produs. Si in aceasta privinta D-na. Clinton ocoleste adevarul: vinovati sunt oamenii care au legaturi si adera la organizatii extremiste precum ISIS, adica vinovat este extremismul islamic. A muta vina in alta parte mi se pare un lucru total in neregula. A scuza extremismul islamic prin a nu-l demoniza – adica a spune intr-un fel ca nu e mare lucru, nu trebuie demonizat – e un alt lucru foarte in neregula. Dar ce ar trebui facut? Laudat?? D-na. Clinton nu a fost convingatoare:

„”We can’t fall into the trap that is set up by the gun lobby that says if you can’t stop every shooting in every incident you should not try to stop any. We did have an assault weapons ban for ten years. I think it should be reinstated,” she said.”

Dar nimic nu garanteaza ca o astfel de interdictie ar rezolva problema. In special problema terorismului islamic si a atentatelor teroriste de pe teritoriul SUA. De fapt D-na. Clinton a profitat de ocazie ca sa promoveze agenda Partidului Democrat in aceasta privinta.

O reactie foarte slaba a democratilor si a D-nei. Clinton. Neconvingatoare, mai ales ca pe durata celor doua mandate ale Presedintelui Obama s-au intamplat atentate teroriste sangeroase, iar autorii sunt tocmai extremisti islamici, extremismul islamic, pe care D-na. Clinton se fereste sa-l numeasca pe fata. Foarte slab… Fara o lupta hotarata impotriva acestui tip de terorism – terorismul islamic – e clar ca acesta va prolifera. D-na. Clinton nu pare sa aiba hotararea necesara pentru a lupta impotriva acestui flagel. Iar pe parcursul celor doua mandate ale Presedintelui Obama, cu toate ca Osama bin Laden a fost omorat, terorismul islamic a proliferat nu doar in America ci si in Europa!!! Iar ceea ce e si mai slab si in defavoarea campaniei electorale a D-nei. Clinton si a democratilor este ca acestia nu propun solutii viabile: se feresc sa numeasca problema – asta e ca si cum n-ai recunoaste ca ai o problema cu acest tip de teorism, iar solutiile pe care ei le propun se refera nu la problema in cauza – logic intr-un fel daca nici macar nu vrei sa recunosti ca ai avea una. Insa o viitoare Administratie la Casa Alba care ar lasa asa problema – tot mereu nevrand s-o recunoasca pe fata – nu face altceva decat sa lase teorismului islamic posibilitatea de a se dezvolta si de a actiona in voie in intreaga lume, lucru extrem de periculos!!

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.