Syria's slaughter is the real insult to Islam

A worthy read. McParland states that since it is Muslims killing Muslims in Syria, while the Arab world sits back and does nothing, this is the real insult to Islam - not some obscure video produced in the United States. - R.O.

Kelly McParland: Syria’s slaughter is the real insult to Islam

Kelly McParland, National Post
Friday, Sept. 28, 2012

The UN General Assembly is a talking shop, where calling for action takes the place of actual action, but sometimes the talk becomes so opaque that even sorting out what the words mean becomes a challenge.

Such is the case this week in New York, where the world’s leaders met for their annual opportunity to lecture one another. Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad wasn’t there, because he’s still at home directing the slaughter of his countrymen. But his spirit was on hand, as a British organization announced that 305 people has been killed in a single day if fighting, the bloodiest day so far, and the UN’s own High Commissioner for Refugees warned that 700,000 refugees may have fled the country by year-end.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the daily death count included only victims whose names had been documented. “If we count the unidentified bodies, the figure will be much higher,” said Rami Abdel Rahman, according to Reuters. The group said 199 of the dead were civilians.

By some counts, the monthly carnage in Syria has now surpassed the highest levels reached during the Iraq war. There is no similar international effort in the works to oust Assad, probably because the U.S. organized the last one, and isn’t about to blunder into that hornets nest again. President Barack Obama ran on the promise he’d get U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not into new foreign adventures. And the U.S., for all the talk of its global influence having diminished, is still the only power that organizes these things.

That leaves the diplomats to demand action, without explaining what that might mean. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, told the assembled worthies the Syrian revolt is “a regional calamity with global ramifications”.

“This is a serious and growing threat to international peace and security which requires security council action,” Ban said. “The international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control.”

He also called for those responsibility for atrocities in Syria to be held accountable, noting “there is no statute of limitations for such extreme violence”, and placing most of the blame on the Assad regime.

“Brutal human rights abuses continue to be committed, mainly by the government, but also by opposition groups. Such crimes must not go unpunished,” he said. “It is the duty of our generation to put an end to impunity for international crimes, in Syria and elsewhere. It is our duty to give tangible meaning to the responsibility to protect.”

In the world of diplomacy, these are unusually blunt words. But what exactly does Ban want? He didn’t say, exactly. He urged “the international community – especially the members of the Security Council and countries in the region – to solidly and concretely support the efforts” of a UN special envoy seeking to end the violence. “We must stop the violence and flow of arms to both sides and set in motion a Syrian-led transition as soon as possible.”

Well and good, but those efforts are going nowhere. Mr Ban’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, walked away from the job of special envoy, declaring it a hopeless task. His successor, Lakhdar Brahimi, lacks his stature and hasn’t made any headway. He says he’s working on a new plan, but won’t say when it might be ready.

Egypt’s new president, Mohamed Morsi, said the conflict is “the tragedy of the age,” and must be brought to an end. How? Again, he didn’t say, except that the West should keep its nose out of things and leave it to regional powers like Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

“I am against foreign intervention by force in what happens in Syria,” Morsi said. “I do not condone this and I think that it is a big mistake if it happens,” he added through an interpreter. “Egypt does not agree to this.”

Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, has blocked earlier UN peace efforts and also thinks the West should [external] mind its own business.

“We are not imposing – especially by force -what we believe in, but we want to stimulate the internal development,” said Putin. “We have warned that we must act with caution, without imposing by force in order not to cause chaos. And what do we see today? We see a chaotic condition.”

So, everyone wants action, but not by Western powers that have the military muscle to force a climax. The regional powers that demand jurisdiction have done nothing to stem the spiraling body count. They want it ended, but are either incapable or unwilling to end it themselves and don’t want anyone else stepping in to try. Despite the hollering of domestic critics, the U.S. president seems disinclined to defy them, and has the body of the murdered Ambassador to Libya as a evidence of how good intentions often go off the rails once military action is put into play.

The truth seems to be that, despite what Mr. Ban and Mr. Morsi have to say, intervention in Syria doesn’t suit anyone’s purpose just now. No enough to risk their own skins, or those of their countrymen, anyway. If the Turks and the Egyptians and the Saudis want a solution, no one is going to block them from formulating one. For all the outrage over insults to Islam that have played out over an amateurish film on the Prophet, it’s Muslim corpses that are piling up in Syria, Muslim refugees who are fleeing for the border, and Muslim countries that are standing by. If Mr. Ban is increasingly frustrated about it, let him talk to Mr. Morsi.

National Post

Iranian Official: 'Big War' means Islamic Messiah's arrival

The 'Mahdi' is the prophesied Shi'ite Islamic "Messiah". As the article below explains, 

"Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world."

If anyone had any doubts as to why the Iranian Regime is seeking nuclear weapons, those doubts should be cast aside after reading this news story. When the highest-ranking Iranian military official ties the probable war with Israel (and the U.S.) to the reappearance of the Islamic Messiah, the world should take notice, and fast. The article quotes Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, who stated, 

"Since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

This kind of dialogue is not part of an action movie, nor a work of fiction, but rather this represents the underlying narrative that is truly driving forward the present day, real life Iran-Israel nuclear crisis. When Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Netanyahu) read/hear these stories, how can they not take the Iranians 100% seriously when the Iranians declare that they seek Israel's literal destruction? No other nation on earth, except Israel, faces such a persistent, pernicious threat from an enemy (and enemies) on nearly every border. These are enemies who believe it is their duty to Allah to carry out acts of martyrdom. As Vahidi stated,

“The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Israel is already (arguably) the most virulently hated nation on earth. For the President of the United States to then tell Israel not to attack Iran, while simultaneously failing to set any 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear weapons program, represents the height of arrogance and is a dangerous sign of non-commitment.

Israel's unilateral military precedents are explicit and numerous: when Israeli leaders declare a threat to be existential, they have acted, every single time. Will the West truly abandon the world's only Jewish State at this perilous time? If they do, and Israel acts against Iran, the riots seen after the release of the anti-Islamic movie will pale in comparison to the vitriol and violence that will be aimed at Israel. The world's military response against Israel may be exponentially worse, mark my words.

We live in disturbing times, and the world is sleepwalking into cataclysmic war. Check out the video at the end of the article for more unnerving proof. - R.O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Official: 'Big War' means Mahdi's is coming
By: Reza Khalili

For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology.

“With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards.

“Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.

Vahidi became the Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer after the 1979 Islamic revolution and later was promoted to chief commander of the Quds Forces. He is on the Interpol most-wanted list for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 and injured hundreds.

Vahidi also played a major role in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

Speaking at a mosque in remembrance of the martyrs who died in service to Iran, Vahidi stated that, “The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Vahidi said Iran’s enemies would have taken action in Syria in the past couple of years if they had the capability. Iran is a much more formidable power than Syria, he said, and concluded that Tehran can easily wipe out the “Zionist regime” of Israel.

Several U.S. officials, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called the officials of the Islamic regime “rational actors.”

Meanwhile, a Revolutionary Guards report quoting the head of the Guards’ public relations, Ramezan Sharif, revealed that Iran has military assets in several countries.

The presence of Quds Forces in Syria and Lebanon, Sharif said, is with the goal of supporting the Islamic nations and for the special situations that exist in those countries.

Sharif said Iranian presence is based on international laws and that, “Currently the Revolutionary Guards has presence in 15 countries, among them Syria and Lebanon, while the Iranian military also has presence in some other countries.”

As revealed recently, terrorist assets of the Islamic regime have been put on high alert for attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests. This extends from the Middle East to Africa, Latin America and the United States.

In a report Thursday in the Washington Times, Kevin L. Perkins, deputy director of the FBI, told a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the agency considered Iran’s assets a “serious threat.”

“Quds Forces, Hezbollah and others have shown they both have the capability and the willingness to extend beyond that (Middle East) region of the world and likely here into the homeland itself,” he testified.

Guard commanders have openly stated that they have recruited assets from Latin America and even some from European countries to avoid suspicion by intelligence agencies and will target America should it get involved militarily against Iran.

Reza Kahlili translated this Iranian video about Islamic prophecies of a coming messiah and the destruction of Israel:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

Westerner's who fuel the Muslim world's grievance culture

As violent protests rage across the Middle East at the "Innocence of Muslims" film, this article challenges Western condemnation of the film and poses one simple truth: "It stands to reason that those who are genuinely enraged by this film have a choice about their behaviour. To suggest otherwise is to paint Muslims as backward people who cannot respond to insults except by the sword or the bomb." So then why does the West continue to bow to medieval extremists bent on igniting violence by condemning the film as much as the protesters? - R.O.   (Update: Another excellent article.)

Westerner's who fuel the Muslim world's grievance culture
Condemning the "grievance" as much as the perpetrator is fast becoming the default response to mass Islamist violence. This must not be allowed to stand.

By: Jeremy Havardi

Rather predictably, The Guardian this week argued that the wave of violence sweeping the Middle East was a spontaneous reaction to the anti Islamic film, "The Innocence of Islam". The film, we were told, set off a "long fuse that led to an explosion of violence that killed the US ambassador to Libya".

The Independent adopted a similar line with its article headlined: "An incendiary film –and the man killed in the crossfire". It added: "The mob enraged by film mocking Prophet Mohamed kills US ambassador in Benghazi rocket attack".

Then on BBC Newsnight on Thursday, ex-Foreign Office mandarin Sir Jeremy Greenstock waded in. The film, he declared, was definitely the "immediate, proximate cause" of the bloodshed.

Nor was this a British reaction alone, for in the US Hilary Clinton made the same causal linkage. The Guardian's Andrew Brown went even further. "The Innocence of Islam" was an "incitement to religious hatred" that deserved to be banned.

Those who blame this murderous mayhem on an obscure film miss the point by the proverbial country mile. The killing of the ambassador appeared to be the result of a carefully planned assassination by jihadist extremists, such as the violent Sunni group, Ansar al Sharia, rather than a mere spontaneous act of anger.

Far from being an expression of Muslim protest in Libya, it was a deranged act of militancy from radicalised Muslims for whom America and all western influences are mortal enemies. The same can be said for much of the violence sweeping every major Arab capital right now. Reducing murderous violence to "protest" risks legitimising behaviour or at least failing to understand its true motivations.

Certainly, one can understand why this amateurish production, a 13 minute clip of which appeared on YouTube, was insulting to Muslims. Its depiction of Muhammad as a pervert and child molester was certainly designed to be intensely provocative. But so are the venomous anti-Semitic and anti-Christian cartoons and images that proliferate in the Middle East. These too cause outrage but we never see mosques or the embassies of Muslim states torched as a result, and rightly so.

It stands to reason that those who are genuinely enraged by this film have a choice about their behaviour. To suggest otherwise is to paint Muslims as backward people who cannot respond to insults except by the sword or the bomb.

It attributes to them a complete inability to defuse their rage by more democratic forms of protest, effectively viewing them as savages from which little better can be expected. Such a view panders to the Islamist grievance culture rather than demanding that Muslims, like everyone else, behave better.

But condemning the "grievance" as much as the perpetrator is fast becoming the default response to mass Islamist violence. In 2002, Muslim mobs went on a murderous rampage in Nigeria, following newspaper comments that Mohammed would have approved the Miss World pageant which was being held in that country. Afterwards, some commentators condemned the organisers of Miss World in more forthright terms than the violent jihadists.

In 2006, there was a prolonged and outrageous display of global violence following the publication of satirical Danish cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. Some of the cartoons depicted the prophet Mohammed in unflattering terms though again, much of the violence was stoked up by local agitators using these cartoons as an excuse.

But as well as condemning sword bearing, embassy burning fanatics, former British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and some of his European counterparts condemned "irresponsible" Danish newspaper editors for publishing the material.

There was another global outpouring of Muslim rage following a speech by the Pope in September 2006 in which he quoted an obscure medieval Emperor, Manuel II. Manuel had condemned Muhammed’s command to "spread by the sword the faith he preached" and the Pope noted, quite correctly, that Islam had a history of using force to spread and defend the faith.

Indeed the instant frenzy of anti-Christian violence was evidence for that very point. Again, many non-Muslims made the mistake of criticising the Pope’s comments, rather than condemning the illegitimate responses of the extremists. Some media outlets gave airtime to the outrageous and incendiary comments of the Islamist Anjem Chaudhry who argued that "capital punishment" would be an appropriate punishment for the Pope.

Lumping offensive remarks or publications with barbaric behaviour excuses the latter while nurturing the extremists’ own victim mentality. But in one sense, this already mirrors the Zeitgeist in liberal Europe. Islamic fanaticism and its terrorist offshoots are seen as the understandable response of a minority aggrieved at "unjust" foreign policy. It is our "provocative" policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or "Palestine" that cause a violent reaction among Muslims.

Hence, it is necessary both to condemn the terrorism and address its "root causes" in foreign policy. As well as being an intellectually false argument, it is morally dubious because it suggests that there is only one inevitable way for enraged Muslims to respond to "our" behaviour. Terrorism remains a choice, and a highly illegitimate one.

Certainly, "The Innocence of Muslims", like the Danish cartoons, is provocative and, for most Muslims, blasphemous. But mob terror and the slaughter of innocents is the preserve of those with an unyielding hatred for western values.

To truly defend those values, our leaders must uphold a system in which we can be offended and, in turn, give offence. The alternative is that we cease to be a magnet for those fleeing from repressive and backward societies.

Jeremy Havardi is a journalist and the author of two books: Falling to Pieces, and The Greatest Briton

Middle East Spirals Out of Control

Middle East Spirals Out of Control
By Arnold Ahlert

Must read. Here's a snippet... -R.O.

"A New York Post editorial best expressed this reality. “This week, Barack Obama got a life lesson: There is no dealing with the 9th century. It can be held at arm’s length, and beaten back when necessary, but it has nothing in common with the 21st century–that is, with civilization.” They further noted that the administration’s aforementioned crutch is exactly that. “Ostensibly, the week’s rioting has been over a mindless bit of videography clearly meant to defame Mohammed and, by extension, Islam. In the modern world, blasphemy is shrugged off. In the 9th century, it warrants mayhem. And in the Obama White House, it’s cause for compromising a fundamental principle, the First Amendment,” it states."

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage

THE most important reason to stop Iran. A timely piece by Goldberg. - R.O.

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage
By: Jeffrey Goldberg

Sept. 3, 2012

The U.S. has often been feckless in its response to genocide. In the years leading up to World War II, and even during the war itself, it didn’t do nearly what it could have to offer refuge toEurope’s Jews and to thwart Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, although much later we did build some excellent museums commemorating the event.

Our words since then have sometimes rung hollow. “Never again,” the slogan goes, but, as David Rieff once said, in actual practice “never again” has meant, “Never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe in the 1940s.”

The writer Ron Rosenbaum, in an essay for Slate that I mentioned last week, asks the question: How much discussion about the Holocaust is too much? Why does he raise this now? Because we’re approaching a pivotal moment in the continuing drama surrounding Iran’s nuclear progress -- and that means the U.S. may once again find itself in a position to confront the threat of genocide.

The rulers of Iran, who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust even as they dream of annihilating Israel, may in the very near future possess the ability to build nuclear weapons and to immunize their nuclear program from outside intervention. Rosenbaum argues eloquently that it isn’t neurotic or hysterical or parochial to worry that a regime that seeks the annihilation of Israel may be gaining the means to achieve it.

Civilized people have condemned the Iranian rhetoric, of course, most recently Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary- general (who nevertheless granted the Iranian regime legitimacy by attending an international conference in Tehran last week). But Rosenbaum is surprised, as I am, that more people don’t seem to grasp the urgency of keeping nuclear weapons away from a regime that openly threatens genocide.
Clear Pattern

With a few exceptions, the American response to genocide, and to threats of genocide, has followed a clear pattern over the years, one characterized first by indifference and timidity, then paralysis, and ultimately regret. The pattern was set by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, and in particular by his State Department, which reacted with depraved indifference to the gathering threat in Europe.

Postwar history is strewn with similar examples. In the late 1980s, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush not only did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein’s attempted genocide of the Kurds -- a slaughter that employed chemical weapons -- but even supported Saddam in his war against Iran. It was only when he invaded Kuwait that we took notice. Talk about dispiriting: Genocide didn’t bother us, but a threat to the smooth flow of oil did.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton did virtually nothing to stop the murder of 800,000 Rwandans (although he later expressed very feelingly his remorse at not intervening)

But it isn’t just our elected leaders who respond inadequately to genocide. The news media play a role, too. Here’s one recent example. Last month, the Washington Post published a lengthy article exploring Iraqi attitudes about the future after the final U.S. troop withdrawal from their country earlier this year.

“In dozens of interviews this summer across Iraq, many people said that their lives were safer and more prosperous under Hussein and that the U.S. invasion was not worth the price both countries have paid,” wrote the reporter, Kevin Sullivan.

This struck me as odd. Many Iraqis, particularly members of the Sunni Arab minority that ruled the country until Saddam’s ouster, regret the U.S. invasion, and many in the Shiite majority certainly regret the bungling and negligence that followed. But how do Kurds feel?
Elision of History

Kurds make up about 20 percent of the Iraqi population, and they were the group most victimized by Saddam’s Baathist regime. As many as 4,000 Kurdish villages were eradicated by his army; dozens of those villages were attacked with chemical weapons. Thousands of innocents were tortured. There is broad agreement in the international human-rights community that the anti- Kurdish campaign amounted to genocide.

The American invasion meant that Iraq’s Kurds were finally free from the threat of further slaughter. For this reason, it’s not easy to find a Kurdish Iraqi who opposed Saddam’s overthrow. But nowhere in the article is this mentioned. In fact, nowhere in the article is a Kurdish Iraqi even quoted. My point is not to pick on Sullivan, who’s an intrepid reporter. It’s to note that this elision of history in a prominent newspaper is symptomatic of a collective unwillingness to fully grapple with a mass murder we could have prevented.

The U.S., under Barack Obama’s administration, is now in a position to upend this unfortunate history. Yet we feel insufficient urgency to blunt the Iranian regime’s openly stated genocidal intentions, and we do embarrassingly little to stop the mass slaughter of thousands of mainly Sunni Syrians by their country’s minority Alawite rulers.

It is true that the continuing massacre in Syria doesn’t yet rise to the level of genocide. It is also true that Obama’s passive response makes it more likely that one day it will. In Iran, Obama’s promise to use all means necessary to prevent the regime from getting nuclear weapons -- to forestall the possibility of a future genocide -- may also one day soon be put to the test.

Sometimes, we turn away from issues that seem insoluble or that raise doubts about our humanity. But turning away always -- always -- makes things worse.

(Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)