Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for August 25/12
Christian girl held on blasphemy cannot read: Vatican
Kuwaiti couple kidnapped in east Lebanon
Tenuous calm in north Lebanon as Army conducts patrols
The kidnapped in Lebanon and the media
Flurry of hostage releases in Lebanon and Syria
North Lebanon: Despite firepower, Sunni push into Jabal Mohsen unlikely
Sniper Fire Kills One in Tripoli amid Cautious Calm
Syrian Rebels Free One of 11 Kidnapped Lebanese, Remaining to be Released Soon
Meqdad Clan Frees Six Syrians as 'Goodwill Gesture'
Kidnapped Lebanese released for ransom
Fatah al-Islam Prisoner Escape Thwarted in Roumieh
2 Lebanese Kids Dead in Mozambique Car Crash
The Free Lebanese Army, though rejected by the Sunni establishment, the idea is endorsed by extremists
First man on moon Neil Armstrong dead at 82
Romney open to US troops securing Syrian WMDs
Morsi to shop for nuclear-capable missiles in Beijing en route for Tehran. Netanyahu, Obama meet Sept. 27
'Iran covering up building IAEA wants to visit'
Nuclear threat: An asymmetric conflict
Fierce fighting in Syria swells refugee exodus
Syria activists report 'execution style' killings
Turkey: Assad regime on its way out
Report: Syrian VP defected to Jordan
Commission’s Director Detained at Airport
IAEA gets no deal with Iran on bomb research suspicions
Turkish minister plays down Syria link to Turkey attacks
Brahimi makes pledge to Syria as fighting rages
Syria army launches fresh assaults in main cities
Libya Islamists destroy Sufi shrines, library: military
Egypt blocks 120 tunnels in the Sinai: security sources
 

Christian girl held on blasphemy cannot read: Vatican
August 25, 2012 /Daily Star
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/International/2012/Aug-25/185681-christian-girl-held-on-blasphemy-cannot-read-vatican.ashx#axzz24aqMRGRh
VATICAN CITY: French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran on Saturday went to the defence of the young Pakistani girl accused of blasphemy, stressing that she "cannot read or write."Interviewed on Radio Vatican, Tauran, who is in charge of interfaith dialogue in the Vatican, said "that before asserting a sacred text has been the object of scorn, it is worth checking the facts."
Rimsha, aged 11 to 16 according to different reports, is accused of burning pages from a children's religious instruction book inscribed with verses from the Koran, Islam's holy book. She was arrested and remanded in custody last Thursday. But Tauran said that Rimsha "is a girl who cannot read or write and collects garbage to live on and picked up the fragments of the book which was in the middle of the rubbish.""The more serious and tense the situation, the more necessary it is to have dialogue," added the cardinal, who was the late pope John Paul II's foreign minister. He also told the daily Il Sussidiario, that he believed it "impossible in the light of the facts that the girl had tried to express her scorn for the sacred book of Islam."The youngster reportedly has Down's Syndrome and her arrest has prompted outrage from rights groups and concern from Western governments. Under Pakistan's strict blasphemy laws, insulting the prophet Mohammed is punishable by death and burning a sacred text by life imprisonment. Rights groups say the legislation is often abused to settle personal vendettas. Rishma had been due to appear in court Saturday but police and her lawyer said Friday that the hearing had been put back to August 31.

Syrian Rebels Free One of 11 Kidnapped Lebanese, Remaining to be Released Soon
Naharnet /25 August 2012/Hussein Ali Omar, one of the 11 kidnapped Lebanese pilgrims in Syria by armed rebels, arrived in Beirut on Saturday.
Family members and several officials including Interior Minister Marwan Charbel gathered at Rafik Hariri International Airport to welcome Omar.
TV footage showed Omar in a good health and wearing a red tie printed on it the Turkish flag.
Omar told reporters that the other 10 men are in a good health, thanking the media for their efforts.
“I call on the Turkish authorities to exert efforts to free the remaining Lebanese in Syria,” Omar said.
“We were treated well and the remaining 10 Lebanese are in good health.”
The 11 men were kidnapped on May 22 in the northern Syrian province of Aleppo upon their return from a pilgrimage to Iran. Fireworks were launched in Beirut’s southern suburbs upon the arrival of Omar.
Family members and the families of the 10 remaining men gathered to welcome him home.
“We were promised that my mates will be freed as soon as possible… Probably in the upcoming five days” Omar said. He pointed out that he left the other 10 men on Friday night not knowing that he will be released. Conflicting reports in the past weeks raised question marks on their fate after Syrian forces shelled the area where they were being held in the town of Aazaz near the Turkish border.
Charbel told reporters at the airport that the “Turkish authorities are smoothly exerting efforts to free the remaining kidnapped Lebanese.”
Omar received telephone calls from several officials including former President Michel Suleiman, Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Najib Miqati, ex-PM Saad Hariri, Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour and others. Earlier, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu telephoned Speaker Nabih Berri and Premier Miqati to inform them that Omar will arrive in Beirut aboard a Turkish plane on Saturday night.
The PM’s press office said Miqati hoped that Turkish authorities would exert further efforts to guarantee the safe return of the remaining Lebanese home.
Omar appeared in a video crossing the border into Turkey, and then speaking to the Doha-based al-Jazeera channel praising his captors, insisting he and the others were "guests, not captives."
"We thank the brothers, rebels of Syria, for their treatment... We have been guests, not captives," he said in the footage.
"We call on the Lebanese people and the dormant Arab peoples, to stand up and support this oppressed people of Syria," he said.
The spokesman of the rebels of Aazaz, Mohammed Nour, announced in a video that the kidnappers released 60-year-old Omar, who hails from the town of Ain al-Sawda in Baalbek, after the mediation of Ulemas and as a goodwill gesture.
He said the fate of the other abductees will be decided after messages are sent to the counties neighboring Syria and other Arab states on setting their stance from the revolution against President Bashar Assad. We ask Hizbullah to recognize the revolution, Nour said. A member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, Sheikh Nabil Rahim, told LBCI that he expected the other 10 to be released soon.

Meqdad Clan Frees Six Syrians as 'Goodwill Gesture'
Naharnet /25 August 2012/Six Syrians taken hostages by al-Moqdad clan earlier this month have been released, the family’s spokesman Maher al-Meqdad announced on Saturday.
“This comes as goodwill gesture,” he told LBCI. However, he pointed out that four other Syrians and a Turkish national will remain captives until the release of Hassan Salim al-Meqdad, who was allegedly kidnapped by the Free Syrian Army in Damascus in August. Al-Meqdad family’s, previously unknown, military wing kidnapped several Syrians and a Turkish citizen, Aidan Toufan, in retaliation for the abduction Hassan. "This has nothing to do with the release of one of the 11 hostages in Syria, clan spokesman Maher Muqdad told Agence France Presse, adding that four other Syrians and a Turkish national are still being held. Another Turkish national has also been kidnapped but it was not clear who was behind his abduction. Earlier this month, an obscure group calling itself al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi Brigade has also claimed the abduction of several Syrians in Lebanon, with the aim of swapping them for 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims kidnapped in Aleppo in May. However, on Saturday media reports said that the group has released four of the Syrian captives. Unverified reports that 4 of the pilgrims had been killed in an air strike on the northern Syrian town of Aazaz earlier this month triggered a spate of violence against Syrians present in Lebanon.

Kidnapped Lebanese released for ransom
August 25, 2012 /Lebanese citizen Mohammad Hassan Sabra who was kidnapped in the Beqaa Valley was released for a ransom of $30,000, OTV reported on Saturday night.
Sabra was abducted in the Beqaa town of Ferzol near Zahle on Friday by unidentified gunmen.-NOW Lebanon

Sniper Fire Kills One in Tripoli amid Cautious Calm
Naharnet /25 August 2012/The northern city of Tripoli enjoyed a cautious calm on Saturday morning after intermittent sniper fire that continued to terrify residents of the neighborhoods of Bab al-Tabbaneh, Jabal Mohsen and nearby areas left one person dead at dawn.Voice of Lebanon radio (93.3) said one person was killed overnight from sniper fire that had a lower intensity than the past days.
Friday’s new round of fighting that left four dead, and 14 people, including seven soldiers, injured erupted after sniper fire killed Salafist Sheikh Khaled al-Baradei following a meeting held at Premier Najib Miqati’s home between Tripoli’s personalities and security officials on reaching a ceasefire. The gunmen used machineguns and Rocket Propelled Grenades in the fighting but the sniper fire has terrorized residents who remain confined in their homes. The army could restore order if the two sides show willingness to do so and if there aren’t any foreign agendas or orders to keep the city on fire, military sources told An Nahar daily. “The situation is very delicate and some sides have clearly stated that they would not commit to the deal struck at the meeting that was held at PM Miqati’s residence or the meetings that preceded it,” the sources said. “The next few hours will decide whether the bickering parties would head toward calm or increase the tension on the ground,” they added. The clashes are between gunmen from the Sunni neighborhood of Bab al-Tabbaneh and the rival district of Jabal Mohsen populated by Alawites. Syrian President Bashar Assad is a member of Syria's Alawite minority. Rebels fighting his regime are members of the nation's Sunni majority.

The Free Lebanese Army?
Though rejected by the Sunni establishment, the idea is endorsed by extremists
Alex Rowell, August 25, 2012
Sunni fighters on the ground in Bab al-Tabbaneh on Wednesday. (AFP photo)
Following a week of pronounced anxieties in Lebanon brought on by the kidnapping of 20 Syrians and a Turkish national by the self-described “military wing” of the influential Shiite Moqdad clan, Tuesday’s reports of the formation of a “Sunni military council” by a prominent Tripoli Salafist—echoing calls in May for the creation of a “Free Lebanese Army”—had many in the country fearing the worst.
Those fears now look to have been somewhat misplaced, as Sheikh Salem al-Rafei—the cleric said to have announced the formation during his Friday sermon—appears to have backtracked amid near-unanimous condemnation of the idea from the Sunni establishment. “All of the officials and sons of Tripoli reject the idea of forming military councils,” said Future bloc MP Mohammad Kabbara on Wednesday after discussing the issue with Rafei. Similarly, the Tripoli mufti, Sheikh Malek Shaar, categorically ruled it out on Friday, while Future bloc MP Ahmad Fatfat called Thursday for “turning Tripoli into an arms-free city.” Rafei himself declined to talk to NOW Lebanon about the matter, though he has told NOW in the past that he too advocates an arms-free Tripoli.
At the same time, some of the more hardline Sunni Islamists have openly and enthusiastically endorsed the idea. Despite telling NOW in June that he opposed all non-state weapons, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, the former UK leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir and founder of Salafist-Jihadist outfits al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK, now says, “I support the establishment of a military council for the Sunnis of Bab al-Tabbaneh […] not just in the North, but in the wider region. Everyone has weapons in Lebanon: the Internal Security Forces, the army, Hezbollah, Amal, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the Palestinians. It is only the Sunnis who are without arms. So when Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir’s demands [to rid the country of non-state weapons] were not met, we had to say that we will arm ourselves in return.”
When contacted for comment, Assir was equivocal, ostensibly rejecting the military council idea while not materially differing from Bakri’s position. “In no way are we creating a military council, nor do we approve of it,” he told NOW. “What Rafei meant was that in case the government cannot protect us, we will have to take measures to protect ourselves.”
Bakri made no such evasions. Asked to explain how the council would function in practice, he asserted its activities would not be aggressive. “It will not be formed to face a certain group or party but only for self-defense and as a contingency in the event of an attack. We have seen the army’s failure to carry out its duty of putting an end to the [Moqdad] kidnappings. Also consider that Syrian tanks are shelling our borders and are entering certain areas constantly and making arrests. The military council is a reaction and is not an organization or party, nor does it aim to replace the state or the army.”
Sheikh Nabil Rahim, who was arrested in 2008 on charges of belonging to Fatah al-Islam, essentially agreed with Bakri, although he claimed that Rafei’s original proposal was non-sectarian. “I listened to the statements of Sheikh Rafei, and he said there should be a military council for all sects, including Shiites, Christians and Sunnis. We are with the state and the army, but this is in self-defense in case they cannot provide protection for their citizens,” he told NOW.
In any case, for actual fighters on the ground in Tripoli, these debates may be largely academic. A Sunni militiaman from the Qobbeh neighborhood who preferred not to be named scoffed when asked about the military council, dismissing it as a rhetorical retort to the “military wing” of the Moqdads. Though Rafei is held in high esteem in Tripoli, and could certainly mobilize militants if he wished, the idea of a formally structured paramilitary outfit for all Sunnis in Lebanon was fantasy, he told NOW.
Moreover, as the tragic re-eruptions of violence in the city over the past week have amply demonstrated, the Sunnis of Tripoli’s Bab al-Tabbaneh have already had a de facto militia for quite some time. In the words of the Qobbeh fighter, “What difference does it make if we call it a ‘military council’ now?”
*Bassem Nemeh, Assem Bazzi and Nadine Elali contributed reporting.

Morsi to shop for nuclear-capable missiles in Beijing en route for Tehran. Netanyahu, Obama meet Sept. 27
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report August 25, 2012/The White House has fixed an appointment for President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to hold talks on Sept. 27, debkafile’s Washington sources report. Netanyahu will spend ten days in the United States, during which he will address the UN General Assembly and launch Israel’s counter-attack on the virulently anti-Semitic themes of Iran’s official anti-Israel propaganda. This timeline indicates that the prime minister is inclined to accommodate President Obama by delaying once again an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program until after the US presidential election on Nov. 6. It stands to reason that Netanyahu would not fix a date with Obama to take place after an attack, or that the president would receive him. That being the case, there will not be much for them to talk about. Obama stood up to the blasts from a number of influential American editorial writers and strategic analysts who urged him to offer Israel a solemn commitment for a pre-emptive American offensive against Iran from the Knesset podium, as a means of holding the Netanyahu government back from military action in the fall of 2012. Another suggestion was for the president to formally notify the US congress of his plans for military action if Iran persisted in speeding the development of ifs nuclear weapon capacity.
Obama rejected both suggestions – and Iran continued to accelerate its advance towards a nuclear weapon undisturbed.
Thursday, diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, disclosed that Iran had installed another 1,000 uranium enrichment machines in its fortified underground facility at Fordo, and was expanding its production of 20-percent refined uranium. Experts not bound by the IAEA’s diplomatic constraints report that enrichment climbed to 30 percent some months ago and was now on the way to 60 percent. At least 3,000 centrifuges were now spinning at Fordo. Israel recently passed information to Washington that Iran had already developed a radioactive (dirty) bomb.
Yet US official spokesmen keep on intoning that there is still room for diplomacy - even after all the parties admitted that the Six Power talks with Tehran broke down irretrievably weeks ago. And Friday, Aug. 24, seven hours of argument between the IAEA and Iranian representatives failed to dent Iran’s implacable opposition to any reduction in its nuclear drive or the slightest transparency.
One can only conclude that, even after Iran has the bomb, the mantra “there is still room for diplomacy” will continue to issue from official US mouths and the Washington-Tehran dialogue drag on, possibly through new channels, as it does with Pyongyang. After they meet, the US President may reward the Israeli Prime Minister with a marginally more assertive statement about Iran as a sort of consolation prize for his restraint. But that will not change the fact that neither has raised a finger to halt a nuclear Iran, both preferring to bow to domestic political pressures and considerations.
Their inaction has given two Middle East leaders a major boost for progress on their own nuclear initiatives.
Last March, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was recently appointed head of general intelligence, travelled secretly to Beijing and returned with Chinese President Hu Jintao’s consent to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear-capable CSS-5 Dong-Feng 21 MRBM ballistic missiles. He also agreed to send over Chinese nuclear engineers and technicians to help Saudi Arabia develop uranium enrichment and other nuclear production capacities. This work is already in progress at the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology near Riyadh. In the last few weeks, Saudi Crown Prince Salman launched negotiations with Tehran on a non-aggression pact and other understandings covering bilateral cooperation behind America’s back on such issues as Syria.
It should be obvious from this development alone that the Middle East nuclear race, which both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted would be triggered by a nuclear Iran, unless preempted, is in full flight, a fact of which they have neglected to inform the general public in both countries. But there is more.
After less than three months in office, the Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi is following in Saudi footsteps: He will kick off his first foreign trips next week with a visit to Beijing, where he hopes to take a leaf out of the Saudi nuclear book. He then touches down in Tehran, ostensibly to attend the Non-Aligned Organization’s summit opening there on Aug. 26, but meanwhile to cultivate ties with Tehran for common action in the Middle East.
He has laid the ground for this by proposing the creation of a new “contact group” composed of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey to disentangle the Syrian conflict – again behind America’s back.
The optimistic presumption that the Egyptian president will have to dance to Washington’s tune to win economic assistance is proving unfounded. And Obama’s hands are tied.
In June 2009, he bound his administration’s Middle East policy to mending American ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, he can hardly starve the new Cairo administration of financial aid.
And the Egyptian president is riding high. Believing he can get away with it, he may even proclaim from Tehran that the two nations have decided to resume diplomatic relations after they were cut off for 31 years. This chain of events confronts Israel with three strategic predicaments:
1. Even if Riyadh, Cairo and Tehran are unable to come to terms in their first efforts at understanding, the fact remains that Saudi Arabia and Egypt have set their faces toward détente with Iran.
2. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are on the road to a nuclear weapon although Egypt is still trailing far behind.
3. In the five weeks remaining before the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China will be moving forward vigorously toward their strategic, military and nuclear goals, while the US and Israel will be stuck in the doldrums of their interminable argument over who goes first against Iran – if at all.

Why an Israeli Strike on Iran Will Happen Before the Election
Posted by Daniel Greenfield/FrontPage
If Israel jets show up in Iranian airspace, it will most likely happen while Obama is too busy accusing Mitt Romney of secretly storing all his money in a giant cave in the Rocky Mountains to do more than dispatch a flunky to chew out Netanyahu over the phone. The election is the perfect window for a strike on Iran’s nuclear program, because Team Obama will be too tied down on the Romney Front to do much damage to Israel.
The Obama Administration is interested in somehow making Iran’s nuclear capabilities go away in the interests of regional stability. Particularly the regional stability of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar. But the last thing that this form of regional stability needs is Israeli planes flying over Saudi Arabia to take out that nuclear capability.
Just like during the Gulf War, regional stability demands that the United States protect Saudi Arabia and the Gulfies, while keeping Israel out of it. Since Iran’s Revolutionary Guard isn’t camped out in Kuwait City, protecting them is a matter of posture. The posturing is hollow because everyone knows that Obama is not about to bomb Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. He is as likely to bomb Iran for Israel as he is to move to South Carolina and join the NRA. If a third Gulf War is fought, it will be fought for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, one more time.
In 1988, the United States fought Iran to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers. If oil prices go high enough to potentially cost Obama the election, then he might pry away his foreign policy people from drawing up maps of Syrian targets long enough to actually hit some Iranian naval installations.
None of this has anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program… and that’s the point. George W. Bush did appear to think that Iranian nuclear weapons might be bad news for the United States. He was nearly unique in that regard. The diplomatic and military establishment is full of experts who view Iranian nuclear weapons purely as factors in the balance of power and utterly refuse to look at them from any other angle. To them, Israel isn’t really concerned about a nuclear attack; it’s only playing a regional power game.
For Israel, violence is not a posture or a theory. It has few trading connections and no alliances in the region. Its foreign policy has always been about dissipating physical threats to its people, whether through diplomatic or military means. It does not follow this line because it is a saintly state, but because it is a state always on the edge. It has too little territory and too many enemies around it to follow any other path.
Surrounded by countries for which destroying it is a matter of national pride and religious fervor, its only real deterrent is military. Winning several wars won it enough breathing room to try diplomatic solutions. And now the first and last of those diplomatic solutions has failed. It can still count on the military as a deterrent, but there is no deterrent against a nuclear attack carried out by terrorists under plausible deniability. The only remaining deterrent after a nuclear attack is killing as many of those responsible as possible before succumbing to radiation poisoning.
Everyone in the region understands the nature of the countdown. Most of the Sunni Gulfies also privately welcome Israel doing something about Iran’s nuclear weapons, even as they redouble their efforts against the Jewish State to avoid allowing their Shiite enemies to benefit ideologically from a confrontation with the Zionist Entity. The rhetoric out of Iran now echoes the rhetoric out of Egypt in the 1960′s. That buildup eventually ended in a preemptive Israeli strike that destroyed Egypt’s air force.
But in Washington D.C., the countdown is not a real thing. The received wisdom among the press and the political and diplomatic establishments is that Netanyahu is an obstinate paranoid man who is playing games with them. They don’t believe that Israel will do anything about Iran, because they wouldn’t do anything about Iran and they assume that Netanyahu is just like them, only more deceptive because he pretends that he will do something about Iran.
It has become fashionable among Western elites to view aggression as either a posture or madness. They have forgotten that sometimes violence isn’t a move on an international chessboard or a prelude to a set of political steps. Sometimes it’s as simple as one side wanting to kill the other and the other side not wanting to be killed.In the Middle East ideas that are considered aberrant insanity in the West are commonplace. Killing people is no great big thing. Most regimes do it from time to time to stay in power. Iran dispatched its Islamic militias to kill its own best and brightest in the streets of its capital. Virginity is believed to act as an instant pass to heaven for a woman, so teenage girls sentenced to death must first be forcibly married to their jailers and raped, before being hung.
The very idea that people think this way is incomprehensible in Washington D.C. But the simple question that Israel has to answer is, if this is what the Ayatollahs do to their own daughters, what would they do to those they consider the spawn of pigs and apes?
Israel already knows the answer to that. When Muslim mobs got their hands on Israeli Jews, before or after independence, they tore them to pieces and then sold snapshots of the remains. The policy of targeting all Jews, men, women and children, is not just something that terrorists do because they have no choice, it is the ideological position of Islamist leaders like Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in Egypt or Rashid Al-Ghannushi in Tunisia, and the policy of the Arab countries fighting Israel.
The liberal West has its illusions about the enemy. Israel has little room for those illusions. It will act because it is alone as few other countries on earth are. It will act because it cannot afford to be Poland, Czechoslovakia or Tibet– sacrificed in the great game of nations. It will act because it has no real choice but to act. It will act because for it this is not a set of talking points, a diplomatic program or a regional agenda, it is life or death. It will act, because for all its flaws, its survival is on the line.
That sense of a nation’s survival and the life of a people hinging on a single course of action has become an alien one in an insulated world. It is not a thing that Washington D.C or Brussels can take seriously. It is not even a thing that all Israelis take seriously anymore. But those who hear the clock ticking know what is coming. They know the hard choices that will come in the months ahead. And they will make those choices as they made them before, because they will choose to survive.

The Syrian media and doctored footage
By Hussein Shabokshi/Asharq Alawsat
Sometimes one finds oneself doing something masochistic for no clear reason, and so does something whilst being quire aware in advance that this will only lead to harm. Man seems to be naturally disposed to this kind of behaviour, ever since Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the forbidden fruit, yet they were deceived by the devil and expelled from heaven. Man is like a child whose parents warn him against playing with fire, but nevertheless does so and burns himself.
This was my frame of mind on the second day of Eid. I had some free time to relax at home, but instead of spending this time reading and thinking, I decided to watch Syrian state television’s coverage of the Syrian revolution. What I saw shocked me as if I had been prodded with a live wire.
Since the outbreak of the revolution, the Syrian media has been striving to portray what is happening in the country as a huge conspiracy against the “resistance”, claiming that the world has mobilized radical terrorists to spread chaos and destruction across Syria. The regime films demonstrations and utilizes primitively and naively doctored footage. For example, whenever there is a pro-revolution flag or slogan, the camera abruptly and absurdly cuts away, whilst the Syrian media is also attempting to portray the refugee camps in Turkey (which house an estimated 70,000 Syrian refugees) as terrorist training camps. Following this, political analysts (who look more like psychologists or specialists in the science of tyranny and oppression) appeared on the screen. I heard one of the analysts say that what is happening in Syria is a result of a “mistake” on the part of President Bashar al-Assad. This statement caused me to rub my eyes in disbelief, for how did this man allow himself to commit suicide live on television by accusing President Bashar al-Assad of committing a mistake! I was eager to see how he would get himself out of this, and the analyst went on to say that “President al-Assad opened the way for freedom in Syria, allowing freedom of expression, assembly and democracy, and now the people of Syria are paying the price for the abuse of the president’s gifts!” This man did not appear remotely ashamed of himself and decided to continue with his “struggle”. He took a deep breath, closed his eyes and said "I want to say this explicitly and bravely" – and here I could not stop myself from applauding this linguistically miraculous sentence – “that Bashar al-Assad is Syria's conscience" adding "he is the country's present and future.” At this point, I felt a sense of pity for this man, and for the future of his family, after he will, no doubt, pay the price for his exceptional “bravery” [in the post-revolution period].
This absurd statement was being made whilst two broadcasters nodded gravely to suggest agreement and approval, as if everyone was under mass hypnosis! Fear of the al-Assad regime has forced the entire country to believe lies for decades until the Syrian people lived under a constant state of intimidation and oppression, whilst now people are ready to tell one lie after another for the sake of salvation.
The regime is unable to clarify Maher al-Assad’s health condition or the defection of Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa, who has completely disappeared from view, although the regime denies this. This is the same regime that has, from day one, absurdly fabricated one lie after another. This reminds me of the successive television dramas produced in Syria and broadcast widely across the Arab world. These television dramas have focused on the despotic French colonial rule of the country, the tyranny of Turkish rule and the corruption of the early governments following independence. Such dramas were being produced as the Baathist government of al-Assad the father, and later al-Assad the son, practiced far greater injustice, despotism and corruption than all previous governments. There can be no doubt that the pathetic Syrian media is based on lies and selling illusions to the people.
However today, all masks have slipped, whilst "rhetoric" is no longer of use. As for me, I have to make up the time I wasted watching Syrian television – which afflicted me with nausea and a stomach ache – and make sure I do not make this mistake again!
Following the collapse of the al-Assad regime, I would suggest that Syrian television remains in its current state, to serve as a cure for depression and stomach pains, based on the Arab proverb that goes: whoever look at other people’s problems will see that their own pale in comparison.

Iran: Rather, it is the Aligned Movement Summit!
By Tariq Alhomayed/Asharq Al-Awsat
It would be absurd to say that participating in the forthcoming summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Iran is part of diplomatic protocol, or that this is in order to promote the concept that this movement is based on. The Non-Aligned Movement was established in 1961 in order to confront the hegemony of the superpowers on the international scene. It would be particularly absurd if the regional powers and Arab leadership attended this summit for the above reasons, especially under the current circumstances facing our region.
The Non-Aligned Movement summit is set to take place in Iran, which for its part is primarily non-aligned with the notion of regional stability and security; this is not something new, but has been present over the past decades. This summit is also taking place at a time that Iran is non-aligned with the Syrian people, instead supporting the criminal of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad. This is no secret, for here we can see Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi announcing that Tehran has a proposal regarding the situation in Syria, and that it will announce this during the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. He added “we believe that the proposal is acceptable, rational and principled” and “it will be very difficult to oppose.” This means that Iran wants to exploit this summit to defend al-Assad, under the cover of the Non-Aligned Movement, at a time when more than 4,000 people have been killed in Syria this month alone at the hands of the forces of the criminal al-Assad. So after all this, can we say that the Tehran summit is truly a non-aligned one? This is absurd, of course.
Even Vali Nasr – an American of Iranian origin – said that the Tehran summit is “Iran’s way of breaking the diplomatic embargo”. This is the embargo that has been placed on Tehran over its ambitions to possess nuclear weaponry, something that threatens the security of the region as a whole, and places the interests of Arab states at risk, politically, economically and socially. More importantly, this is something that would strengthen Iran’s chances of influencing and controlling the Arab states, including Iraq, Lebanon and Syria! As for the claims that the Non-Aligned Movement summit aims to confront the superpower’s hegemony over the international scene, this is pathetic! For what must be confronted today in our region is the Russian, Chinese and – firstly – Iranian alignment with Syria, against the unarmed Syrian people. What we must confront is Iran’s extending influence in our region, not to mention Iranian nuclear arms. Indeed confronting the superpower’s hegemony is something that cannot happen today, particularly as the presidents of all Arab Spring states, without exception, are looking for Washington to recognize their election victories, or looking for the International Monetary Fund [IMF] to provide them with aid and support. Therefore they cannot seek to gain legitimacy from the US or Europe, and then go to Iran to confront American and western influence – this is a political lie in the same manner as the “resistance”, “pan-Arabism” and [Muslim Brotherhood slogan] “Islam is the solution”. For reality and facts tell us that there is no such thing as non-alignment in politics, for non-alignment is an alignment in itself. Security, stability, social peace and preventing bloodshed are duties, and we cannot deal with this based on non-alignment.
Therefore, merely participating in the forthcoming Tehran summit represents non-alignment with the unarmed Syrian people, and support for Iran, which is a partner in shedding the blood of the Syrians and supporting the criminal of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad.

Looking at violence in Iraq
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
The Jerusalem Post/August 21, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3312/iraq-violence
What are we to make of the increase in violent deaths in Iraq during June and July? Is it a sign of a long-term upsurge in violence since the US troop withdrawal? Who are the culprits? These are all pertinent questions.
To begin with, it should be noted that violence in Iraq often follows cyclical patterns. That is, insurgent groups normally step up their operations as summer begins, and around the times of religious festivals, when pilgrims (frequently travelling on foot) are exposed, we can expect upsurges in violence.
Thus, in June, there were waves of bomb attacks targeting Shi'a pilgrims who were commemorating the death of Moussa al-Kadhim, who was the greatgrandson of Muhammad.
Therefore, one should be careful in extrapolating from short-term trends to warn of growing sectarian tensions and a return to civil war in the near future.
Today, the insurgent groups responsible for attacks on civilians and a large number of attacks on government officials are entirely Sunni, since the Shi'a militant groups like the Kataib Hezbollah have disbanded following the pullout of US forces.
The two main organizations are al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), which is now virtually an entirely native force, and the Ba'athist Naqshibandia led by Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, who is still at large and most recently appeared in a video in April to denounce the Assad regime and complain of an Iranian- American-Israeli conspiracy taking over Iraq.
At present, there is no real evidence to suggest either group is gaining new recruits from Sunni Arabs on the basis of frustration with problems in the political process. If such an assertion were true, insurgents carrying out the attacks would surely make their specific grievances clear (e.g. perhaps demanding from Nouri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad an amnesty for Vice President Tariq al- Hashemi).
However, there are two ways in which one can link the current state of Iraqi politics with violence.
First, as analyst Joel Wing of Musings on Iraq suggested to me in a discussion on this topic, the political impasse can induce frustration in local Sunni Arab populations such that the insurgents have an easier environment in which to conduct operations.
Hence, said locals might refuse to disclose the whereabouts of insurgents to the security forces, probably having an attitude along the lines of "serves them right" against the government and security forces. In turn, one can add that the tendency toward heavy-handedness on the part of the Iraqi army and police, which still suffer from major deficiencies in intelligence gathering on militant activities, only exacerbates this problem.
Second, one should not discount violence between political factions that accounts for some of the attacks on government officials. Observers have noted that the nature of such operations – for instance, assassinations by means of firearms with silencers – points to a picture of meticulous planning and skill at odds with the more simple car bombs and suicide bombers of the Naqshibandia and AQI. It is hardly implausible that political factions have their own hitmen they can deploy against each other in times of political crisis.
Nevertheless, as Wing also told me, it is important not to exaggerate the extent of this phenomenon.
Indeed, violence between political factions probably accounts for only a minor proportion of these attacks.
IN FACT, more overt examples of violence between political factions (e.g. rallying supporters to attack the offices of a rival party) are also fairly rare, with the most recent notable case actually taking place in the Kurdistan area in early December between Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party that is part of the ruling coalition of the Kurdistan Regional Government, and the opposition Kurdistan Islamic Union. The clashes arose after supporters of the latter attacked liquor stores, among other businesses owned by Assyrians and Yezidis in the town of Zakho.
Finally, it should be stressed that in general, the reduction of AQI's influence since the advent of the Sons of Iraq movement has been exaggerated.
Though the group's power in central Iraq and Anbar is indeed a shadow of its former self, AQI has always maintained a strong presence in Mosul, where it behaves like a mafia in extorting money from businesses and other residents, something that has been going on for years and gives AQI ample financial means to carry out attacks.
A case-in-point is the murder of the Chaldean archbishop of Mosul in January or February 2008, after churches in the city stopped paying jizya – a traditional, extortionist poll-tax imposed on non-Muslims living under Islamic law – to AQI. It should be noted that this incident took place even as AQI was suffering major setbacks further south.
Violence has generally stabilized at levels that still make Iraq a very dangerous place, which in turn creates numerous problems such as deterring foreign investment, thereby impeding reconstruction efforts and liberalization of the top-down bureaucracy.
In short, the political impasse, heavy-handedness of the security forces, and AQI strength in Mosul mean that overall violence is unlikely to decrease substantially over the coming years, even as we can put aside media sensationalism that tends to look only at short-term trends with uninformed talk of a return to a full-blown sectarian civil war as we saw in 2006.
**Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Ramadan: Islam's 'Holy Month' of Christian Oppression
by Raymond Ibrahim/Investigative Project on Terrorism
August 24, 2012
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/12186/ramadan-islam-holy-month-of-christian-oppression
The month of Ramadan, which ended earlier this week, proved to be a month of renewed Muslim piety on the one hand, and renewed oppression of non-Muslim minorities on the other. In Nigeria, for example, Islamic militants are living up to the assertion that "Ramadan is a month of jihad and death for Allah," proving that killing Christians is not only reserved for Christian holidays—like Christmas and Easter, when militants bombed churches killing dozens—but is especially applicable during Islam's Ramadan.
Usually, however, Ramadan-related oppression has to do with Muslim perceptions that Christians do not "know their place"—either because the latter openly do things forbidden to Muslims during Ramadan, or because they dare object to the things Muslims do during their holy month.
When it comes to these aspects of dhimmitude, Egypt offers countless examples, past and present, simply because it houses the Middle East's largest Christian minority, the Copts, and thus offers more opportunities for the intolerant face of Ramadan to reveal itself. Two recent examples follow:
First, according to Coptic websites, on July 27, a diabetic man in Egypt was driving his car in Maadi, a suburb of southern Cairo, when he was struck with great thirst, "which he could not bear" (a side-effect of diabetes, further exacerbated by Egypt's July weather). He pulled over by a public water source and started drinking water. Soon three passer-bys approached him, inquiring why he was drinking water (among the many things forbidden to Muslims during daylight in Ramadan). The diabetic man replied, "Because I am a Christian, and sick," to which they exclaimed "you're a Christian, too!" and begun beating him mercilessly. Other passer-bys began to congregate to see what was happening, but no one intervened on behalf of the diabetic non-Muslim, until he managed to make a dash for his parked car and fled the scene.
Though water is not forbidden to him, this infidel Christian openly violated a principle of Islamic Ramadan, which was deemed a great affront and punished accordingly. This idea that non-Muslims must show respect for Islamic observances is commonplace. Around the same time this story took place, a Christian Lebanese singer was taken to police while in Algeria for smoking in public, and "failing to show due respect to Muslims." She was released after police warned her that "she was not allowed to smoke in public during Ramadan in Muslim Algeria, even though she was a Christian."
The second story from Egypt concerns a young Christian doctor, Maher Rizkalla Ghali, who was shot by riotous Muslims, including easily-identified Salafis, resulting in the loss of one eye and the likely loss of the other. According to Watan Voice, the perpetrators live downstairs and regularly fired bullets in the air while feasting during sahur (the time before dawn when Muslims are permitted the things they are forbidden in daylight, including food, water, and sex). One night the raucous was so unbearable that the Copt spoke to them from his window, saying that their actions were disturbing to children and the elderly.
Their response was to "insult his religion" and open fire at him, severely disfiguring him. The Muslims then tried to break through the door to attack and plunder the Christian household. Although the family filed a police report, "security forces have not taken any action towards the perpetrators." Likewise, though they tried to admit the blinded Christian man to several hospitals, they were refused admission until Kasr Hospital accepted them.
This story is almost identical to what happened to a family in Turkey around the same time. According to Hurriyet Daily News, the home of an Alevi family "was stoned and their stables burned down by an angry mob" because they "told a Ramadan drummer not to wake them for sahur, the meal before sunrise," resulting in a quarrel. After local Muslims found out about the family's temerity, "a mob of around 60 people" gathered around the house hurling stones, setting the stable on fire, and chanting Islamic slogans, including "Allahu Akbar!" "They came to lynch us," explained a family member, and "told us to leave and threatened to kill us if we did not."
The above anecdotes demonstrate the stark antithesis between the West and the Muslim world concerning the notion of being "sensitive" to religious minorities during the holidays of the dominant religion: whereas almost every year, stories appear of Christmas being suppressed to accommodate Muslim sensitivities in the West, in the Muslim world, Christians themselves are being suppressed to accommodate Muslim sensitivities.

Question: "Is there evidence that God answers prayer?"
GotQuestions.org
Answer: Countless stories could be cited of diseases cured, exams passed, repentance and forgiveness granted, relationships restored, hungry children fed, bills paid and lives and souls saved through the efficacy of prayer. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence that God answers prayer. Most of the evidence is anecdotal and personal, however, and that bothers many who think of “evidence” only as that which is observable, measureable, and reproducible.
Scripture clearly teaches that prayers are answered. James 5:16 states that “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” Jesus taught His disciples that “if you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” (John 15:7). First John 3:22 echoes this truth, saying that we “receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.”
Scripture, moreover, is replete with stories of answered prayer. Elijah’s prayer for fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:12), Hezekiah’s prayer for deliverance (2 Kings 19:19), and the apostles’ prayer for boldness (Acts 4:29) are just three examples. Since these accounts were written by eyewitnesses to the events, they constitute clear evidence of answered prayer. One might, of course, counter that Scripture does not present observable evidence in the “scientific” sense. However, no statement of Scripture has ever been conclusively disproved, so there is no reason to doubt its testimony. In fact, labeling some kinds of evidence as “scientific” and other kinds as “non-scientific” is a fuzzy and artificial distinction at best. Such a distinction can only be made a priori, i.e., prior to the evaluation of the data. In other words, the choice to evaluate the efficacy of prayer only in light of observable evidence is not a choice motivated by the data but by prior philosophical commitments. When this arbitrary restriction is relaxed, the biblical data speaks clearly for itself.
Occasionally, a group of researchers will conduct a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer. Their findings are usually that prayer has no effect (or possibly even a negative effect) on, for instance, the average recovery time of people in medical care. How are we to understand the results of studies such as these? Are there any biblical reasons for unanswered prayer?
Psalm 66:18 says, “If I regard wickedness in my heart, the Lord will not hear” (NASB). Likewise, 1 John 5:15 qualifies our receiving “anything we ask” with our obedience to God’s commands. James notes that “when you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (4:3). So, a couple reasons for unanswered prayer are unconfessed sin and wrong motivations.
Another reason for unanswered prayer is lack of faith: “When you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6-7). Hebrews 11:6 also identifies faith as a necessary condition for a relationship with God, something always mediated by prayer in the name of Christ: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” Faith, then, is necessary for answered prayer.
Finally, some critics of Christianity make the case that, since Jesus instructs His disciples to “ask whatever you wish,” all prayers should be answered. However, such criticisms completely ignore the conditions to the promise in the first part of the verse: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you.” This is clearly a prescription for praying within the will of God; in other words, genuine prayer which God always answers is, in fact, that sort which requests, explicitly or implicitly, that God’s will be accomplished. The will of the petitioner is secondary. Jesus Himself prayed this way in Gethsemane (Luke 22:42). The humble prayer of faith allows that the prayer may be answered with a “no”; anyone not offering such a prayer—anyone who demands to be answered—has no right to expect an answer.
Another reason why so many studies report the inefficacy of prayer is that it is impossible to eliminate the variables associated with the spiritual condition of those praying (is the petitioner even a believer?), the motivation for which they offer the prayer (is it to provide evidence or because the Holy Spirit has moved them to pray?), the way in which they offer their prayer (are they praying a formulaic expression or intentionally bringing requests to God?), and so on.
Even if all such lurking variables could be eliminated, one overarching problem would remain: if prayer could be tested empirically and forced to yield conclusive results, it would obviate the need for faith. We cannot “discover” God through empirical observations; we come to Him by faith. God is not so clumsy that He should reveal Himself in ways He did not intend. “He who comes to God must believe that He is” (that is, that He exists). Faith is the prerequisite and the priority.
Does God answer prayer? Ask any believer, and you will know the answer. Every changed life of every believer is proof positive that God answers prayer.