Islamic radicals kill 4 American diplomats in Libya

KIMBERLY DVORAK, Examiner.com. SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

Yesterday Americans peacefully remembered 9/11 with prayers and ceremonies. However, halfway around the world the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and U.S. Consulate in Libya were targeted by hundreds of Islamic radicals that resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador for Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, a Foreign Service Information Officer Sean Smith and two other U.S. embassy staffers.

Gruesome photos of Ambassador Steven’s lifeless body being dragged through the streets in Benghazi lit up the Internet, and caused seven other Middle Eastern embassies to heighten security.

The attack yesterday in Libya highlights terrorists continued hatred toward America and the fact the murders occurred on 9/11 demonstrates U.S. policy may not be working as planned. Last year Nobel Peace Prize winner,President Obama, declared war on the Libyan dictator and after a bloody eight-month engagement, the rebels, with the help of U.S. air and ground forces, captured and then murdered their brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

The New York Times reports, “The protesters in Cairo appeared to be a genuinely spontaneous unarmed mob angered by an anti-Islam video produced in the United States. By contrast, it appeared the attackers in Benghazi (Libya) were armed with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Intelligence reports are inconclusive at this point, officials said, but indications suggest the possibility that an organized group had either been waiting for an opportunity to exploit like the protests over the video or perhaps even generated the protests as a cover for their attack.”

The mass protests in Cairo also stemmed from a Jewish Israeli-American filmmaker, Sam Bacile (a pseudonym), who produced a movie entitled “Innocence of Muslims,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Apparently the movie depicted a derogatory view of the prophet Muhammad, something Muslim extremists find offensive.

Regardless of the rational used by Islamic extremists the breeching of the U.S. Consulate in Cairo and Libya underscores the lingering hatred for America. It’s worth pointing out that America has spent trillions of dollars in perpetual Middle East Wars, billions in foreign aid and supported unsavory rebels to topple ruthless dictators.

The politically correct statement released by the Cairo embassy did nothing to curtail or pacify the terrorists who later brutally attacked the Libyan embassy and killed four American citizens.

“Obama’s first reaction was to apologize,” said Lt. Col. Army (ret) Ralph Peters. “The Egyptian government knew it was happening. Egypt is getting billions of U.S. aid and they refused to protect the U.S. embassy.”

It was the U.S. embassy apology statement controversy and subsequent murders that dominated news outlet coverage. Ironically, the State Department’s announcement contended the clear acts of terrorism were predicated on the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of speech.

While many pundits concluded that these attacks were an act of war, Peters disagreed and said they were a war-like act. “We are supposed to defend our Constitution not elevate political correctness. Our military takes an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution.”

Currently the elite Marine group, Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team, (FAST) which responds to these types of terror-related emergencies, was on route to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Libya.

President Obama’s response

This morning President Obama began backtracking of the politically correct statement his Cairo staff released yesterday. In a Rose Garden press conference, the President insisted those responsible would be held accountable.

“I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward,” the President concluded.

A Muslim response

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy responded quickly to the attacks on U.S. embassies.

“The actions of the mob in Libya and the clear interventions of the former regime are nothing short of pure evil and in no way representative of the teachings and practices of the faith of Islam,” Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.” We must not blink in the face of this irrational reaction to the mere words of a little known filmmaker.”

Dr. Jasser said that the U.S. embassy in Egypt’s first politically correct apology statement regarding the Islamic extremist attacks was counterproductive and only justified their cause by condemning the free speech of a Jewish moviemaker. This type of terrorist tactic is nothing new. In fact, just like the mistaken Koran burning in Afghanistan, this method is a reliable propaganda tool used by Middle East terrorists.

“We need a bold strategy in this region to foster the liberty minded Muslims in these countries to work against these elements of hate and anti-Americanism. We need to help the people of these countries to go through a reformation and step into modernity and away from these irrational actions,” Jasser finished.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, as American’s wake up on this September 12, the country remains at war. The 11-year battle isn’t about freedom or democracy, but radical Muslim ideology.

It’s up to Islamic protestors to determine the heart and souls of their respective countries. America may choose to play a quiet role behind the scenes, but ultimately the citizens of Middle Eastern nations must take the lead, define their governance doctrines and rebuild their nations.

With the Arab Spring quickly turning into the Arab Winter, does America’s expensive foreign policy justify the end results?

Syria After Assad

Posted by Jamie Glazov  Aug 24th, 2012 , Frontpagemag

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Shekoh Abbas, the leader of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria. He has joined with U.S. Syrian Sunni reformer Dr. M. Zhudi Jasser to advance the cause of Syrian democracy via the Syrian Democratic Coalition.

FP: Sherkoh Abbas, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today about what might happen in Syria when and if Assad falls.

What do you see as following the overthrow of Assad?

Abbas: Thank you for having me, Jamie.

Basically if Assad goes, for sure it will be civil war, but if we wait too long there will be much more bloodshed or full-scale civil war. It has already started, in my opinion. There has been cleansing and fighting going on between Alawites and Sunni.

Compare the situation to Lebanon. Lebanon used to be a place for proxy war where the regimes would fight each other. However, the quicker we jump into an inclusive way out of what is going on, the better it is for Syrians and the international community. We see federalism in Syria as an inclusive way-out because it will address secular needs of stakeholders from Sunnis, Kurds,  Alawites, Christians and other minorities, which will accelerate regime change in an orderly way.

Syria needs to be a workable state that is inclusive of certain stakeholders, not a failed state as it is now. This is an opportunity for the West to do things right, build a successful state, and assure that Syria doesn’t move into full scale civil war. Stakeholders may include Russia maintaining a presence in the coastal area, while the development ensues of an Alawite State, Kurdish State on the north side, and Aleppo and Damascus States for the rest of Syria. This will minimize or prevent proxy wars in our view because stakeholders will not be forced to submit to a strong central government that could oppress them.

The only way to remove support from the regime is to create an Alawite region or state and to separate the Alawites and their supporters as a people from their small presence in the regime. The solution is working with all groups in an inclusive approach and by promoting support for federalism or confederation for the above states/regions. Otherwise, we see there is a full civil war that can only get worse around the corner.

Folks from the U.S. State Department, Turkey, Qatar, and Gulf countries are currently supporting Islamist groups who seek another dictatorship, but this is not an option for Syria. These folks want a strong man and one address to go to for dealing with Syria, but the best thing is to find a way out that and address the interest of the Syrians, Russians, Europeans, the U.S., and regional counties, including Israel. Furthermore, there needs to be the inclusion of the interests of all minorities such as Kurds, Alawaite, Druz and Christians, otherwise it won’t work.

FP: Do you envision a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood as in Egypt?

Abbas: The answer is not to bring Sharia Law into Syria. A dictator, theocrat, or someone who is an appointed or selected national leader is not acceptable for Syria. We can independently find our own secular leadership that allows the people to have more of a say over their states within the new Syria.

When Syria split from the United Arab Republic, the Kurds suffered under the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And now in Egypt they are trying to control people like the Coptic Christians. They are immediately trying to Arabize and convert the Copts, who deserve to have their rights protected. The Muslim Brotherhood is trying to take over one institution at a time, to ultimately change things as they wish.  Therefore, since Kurds are a part of Syria, they need to have a say over their own affairs.

In Syria, all the minorities constitute a majority, like Alawites who have a lot of weapons and Russian support. With the influx of Iran, Hezbollah, and related extremist forces, there is developing violence and risk for proxy wars.

It is important for the international community to address Syria and establish a compromise. Sunnis, Kurds, Russia, Europeans, everyone should have a piece of the pie through establishing law and joint leadership like any other inter-state alliance or confederation.

The State Department should consider that Syrians should have their own rights to have states, like the United States does.  We have people on the ground who organize independently.  We need to take responsibility for our own democracy and our own human rights issues, because if Islamic extremists take control of Syria, it will be worse than what is happening now.

FP: So there is a possible democratic alternative? A separate Kurdish state in Syria?

Abbas: Historically, Kurds have been presidents, prime ministers, and top ranking generals in Syria before Baath took over more than 4 decades ago.  Looking back, Kurds have had their rights revoked, citizenship revoked, tortured, oppressed and killed. In short, we have no rights at all in Syria. We want to exercise our rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to decide for ourselves in our own area, and  bring prosperity to our people and to Syria as a whole.

We should have federalism and nothing less, otherwise there will be no government. The current arrangement under Assad is unsustainable. We just need to have a say in the future Syria.

Alawites want more than Kurds, but they are afraid to speak up, because they will suffer more if they speak out. The Druze will also suffer if they speak out.  We have been accused of being Zionist or of seeking to create a second Zionist state in the Middle East. We have learned to deal with it. Also, Iran and Turkey agree to keep Syria as a centralized state to avoid a domino affect within their own countries.

The current centralized government does not serve justice for all. We need a new form of checks and balances, where the people have their own identities and where federalism blocks Islamic extremism and dictatorships.

FP: What should U.S. policy be toward the current struggle?

Abbas: The U.S. is not taking sufficient action; it should address the removal of Iran’s influence.

The U.S. has a choice in using the international community to make a decision. It was successful in the past to lead, even during the era of the Soviet Union. Now, the U.S. does not want “regime change,” it is looking for a dictator, like the Muslim Brotherhood or a secular dictator for a continuation of a centralized Syrian government, while using Russia as an excuse.

But there is a better policy.

An easier way is to protect Russia’s interest to maintain control over their gas interests and ports in Syria, protect allies, have compromises, and bring international support for a new Syrian confederation.

FP: What are your thoughts on how the Obama administration has handled it thus far?

Abbas: The administration has failed in leadership, and failed in preventing human lives from being saved by doing nothing, and has instead enabled more violence, and has encouraged the regime to slaughter and kill more people. The regime has killed the Syrian people, and the administration should have been more proactive in supporting regime change while finding true groups that can work together and in working with Russia on protecting its interests after Assad. The Syrian regime learned that the U.S. was all talk and not action-oriented.   It is a disaster for the Syrian people.

In 2003 when Saddam was gone, Assad was so afraid of the U.S., and then the Kurds and others in Syria stood up and protested in the 2004 Kurdish uprising, while a few people were killed and injured compared to now. The Syrian people want change, and hopefully the U.S. will provide leadership. But until then, thousands of people are getting killed.

FP: Shed some light on the Obama-Erdogan Alliance and the dangers it poses.

Abbas: Obama and Erdogan show a lot of public respect for each other in Istanbul and Ankara, which promotes their concept of “moderates,” but it’s not moderate when a system is slaughtering Kurds and others. Their relationship does not serve the Kurdish people nor democracy.

The PKK is not the answer, but 25-30 million Kurds don’t have rights in Turkey. Erdogan managed to purport to Europeans that he is a moderate; he tried to use the Turkish platform, but the people deserve their rights and Kurds in Turkey have no rights and he is threatening Syrian Kurds.

Sunni-Arabs are being supported as a result of the alliance, but their interest is energy in Syria and the Middle East so that they can dictate oil or energy prices and distribution into Europe.

President Obama shouldn’t be enabling them in these areas. Obama does believe that they are moderate Muslims, but they are not. A true moderate treats fellow people right, and doesn’t slaughter minorities like Kurds.

The best thing is for the U.S. to divest from this relationship, and put down a road-map to federalism that will not show any threats to Turkey, does not support Iran, and does not support the Muslim Brotherhood. In other words, don’t subcontract American foreign policy to Turkey, instead institute a new democratic policy for Syria.

FP: Crystallize for us the problems of a unified Syria and what Syrian Kurdish autonomy would look like.

Abbas: The Syrian Kurdish region is not like Iraq, because Iraq did not solve the Kurdish problem until now. The Kurdish region of Syria is not necessarily under Kurdish control.  There are parts that have been Arabized, the northwest coastal region/Kurdish Mountain area, but should be part of the Kurdish region. If you refer to the demographic map (above), the north up to the coast is our area. We want federalism, as in a federal government of Syria involving multiple federations as Sunni, Alawite, and Kurd. The Kurds would also be part of the central government with joint leadership.

The U.S. should not falsely talk about developing a coalition, as it cannot bridge gaps by selecting Syrian leaders that Americans want. Coalition is about finding people who work together based on what they want and a workable solution. Sometimes not all sides will agree, but it’s important to see a compromise for all. If all the groups want a decentralized government, then it is important for Kurds to be vocal in support of their fellow Syrian compatriots.  We suffered too much for too long and cannot wait 50 more years to find out that we have a failed state again.

FP: Sherkoh Abbas, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser: The Battle for the Soul of Islam

August 13, 2012, Jeanette Pryor Blog

Last night I began to read A Battle for the Soul of Islam by Zuhdi Jasser, a physician who founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser, a physician and former U.S. Naval officer, brings a great deal of clarity to a very sensitive and sometimes confusing question, the distinctions between Radical political and Moderate spiritual Islam.

There are many excellent books and documentaries about the real threat we face from Radical Islam including The Third Jihad, a film Dr. Jasser narrates, that exposes the systematic objectives of the Muslim Brotherhood for the radicalization of Islam in America. Jasser’s greatest contribution might be his clarifications concerning Moderate Islam.

Daily experience clearly shows a differentiation between radical and normal Muslims; those who seek to impose Sharia upon others through violence and those who go about their own lives without a desire to force this conviction upon anyone.

I had, before reading Battle,  adopted too academic an understanding of this question. Many books about Radical Islam and Antisemitism in the Muslim world pore over the original texts and history of Mohammad’s life to document their essentially militaristic proselytism and misogyny.

Reading Jasser’s book and watching the Third Jihad, I realized that it is very easy, as it was for me in the past, to consider this in too academic a fashion. Authors I read concluded that since Islam appeared to be essentially violent or essentially political, then those Muslims who lived a purely spiritual form of Islam were not really Muslims, simply interpreting the faith to suit their own needs.

Even if all the scholarship in the world demonstrated that Islam has been more frequently interpreted in a legalistic or literal manner, it is not the texts or even the life of Mohammad that determine how Islam is lived, but the individuals who embrace it.  You cannot, as I formerly and erroneously did, conclude that because texts and history are being used to support violence, there is no such thing as Moderate Islam. Just because exegetes can demonstrate the legitimacy of a radical interpretation of Islam, this cannot mean that Islam is itself a necessarily radicalizing philosophy since so many, like Jasser, find in Islam the inspiration for a life of service to others and respect for their fellow-man.

Jasser’s book implores fellow Muslims not to give the narrative of their faith to the terrorists or the academics, but to become the voice of the non-politicized true Moderate Islam that is lived everyday in the real world. In Battle for the Soul of Islam, the author advocates a form of Islam that would be a social organizing principle implemented through force. Since he rejects the idea and practices that enslave women to men or permit abuse, Zuhdi retains the humanitarian and charitable exhortations in the texts of his faith. This personal and non-coercive form of Islam, he states, is precisely what is meant by Muslims who consider themselves to be “moderate.”

Jasser speaks of “separation of mosque and state” as the defining element of moderate Islam, the forgoing of any attempt to use the government to promote the imposition of Sharia on others. This is profoundly different from Radical Muslims who dream of precisely that, to have all freedoms denied to those who do not wish to live according to Sharia. Because Jasser sees the daily machinations of political Islam in our country to slowly bend our laws to the process of social Islamization, he calls on fellow-Muslims who do not want this form of Islam to gain control of the public space.

Human beings and our ideas are complex, not easily reduced to definitions or clear-cut categorizing. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Jasser for his work because I  have a better understanding of Muslims who do not wish to live a literal form of Islam and respect for the subjective desire they have to live a peaceful version of their faith.

WASHINGTON — A House of Representatives committee revisited past hearings and presented key findings Wednesday in an attempt to draw conclusions on radicalization within the Muslim American community, but was left undecided. The hearing was the fifth in a series of discussions on the controversial issue.  Read more.