Latest News Reports From Miscellaneous Sources for July 03/12
Saudi Arabia warns citizens not to travel to Lebanon
Rocket fired from Lebanon wounds two Syria police
Syria running 27 torture centers: rights group
Syria strikes Damascus suburb; U.N. decries arms flow
Assad says wishes Turkish jet not downed -paper
Russia accuses West of distorting Geneva Syria accord
Iraq market bomb kills 25, hours after pilgrims hit
Iran says launches long-range missiles in war games exercise
Turkey hosts Iran nuclear talks  
ICC team released from Libya back in the Netherlands
Iran and Hezbollah to defend Syria from “attack,” PFPL-GC chief says
Sleiman: Israel’s ‘attack’ violates UNSCR 1701
Hezbollah denies members obstructed ISF work
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri cancels parliamentary session over Christian parties' boycott
Lebanon's Arabic press digest - July 3, 2012
Syrian army detains Lebanese General Security members
Lebanon experiences nationwide Internet blackout
Mikati: Travel warnings tied to evacuation fears
Berri receives letter from Hollande affirming Franco-Lebanese ties
Two wounded in Lebanon bank robbery, over $76,000 stolen
Lebanon’s' Foreign Ministry sets up hotline for expats
Jumblatt urges countries to end support for Assad
Assir threatens escalation as supporters dig in for long protest

As ye sow, so shall ye reap
July 2, 2012 /Now Lebanon
Let’s wind the clock back a few years. In late 2006, only months after Lebanon suffered a devastating war with Israel, March 8 members of the government walked out of the cabinet in response to a decision taken on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian bloc declared the government illegal and Hezbollah, Amal and the Free Patriotic Movement took to the streets. And they didn’t just block roads with burning tires for a few hours. No, when March 8 does something, it doesn’t do it in halves, and so for 18 months, a significant tranche of the Beirut Central District was closed off and became home to a tented city. It didn’t stop there. The Grand Serail, the seat of government, was besieged and was only protected from a baying mob by layers of razor wire and the presence of troops, many with heavy caliber machine guns mounted on armored cars. Not only was what was left of Fuad Siniora’s government effectively trapped, it also had to contend with the omnipresent threat of assassination from a campaign that had already taken the lives of MPs Gebran Tueni and Pierre Gemayel; communist party leader Georges Hawi and the journalist Samir Kassir.
While the BCD was not necessarily the economic heart of the country, it was the centerpiece of post-civil war Lebanon and a major tourist destination. The presence of the tents and the paid “activists” put a serious dent in Lebanon’s image and decimated business in the area. Did March 8 care? Apparently not.
At the time, there was very little point in asking why the protestors were not evicted by the security forces. We all knew of Hezbollah’s ever-present threat to unleash violence. The party, which was still basking in its self-declared “divine victory” against Israel, simply would not respect the state’s attempt to enforce law. In short, despite the slogans claiming the protest was striking a blow against foreign interference and for dignity and transparency, Lebanon was hostage to a March 8 bully.
How the chickens have come home to roost. Today, not only are Hezbollah’s own supporters taking to the streets to complain about a whole host of grievances, most notably the country’s chronic electricity crisis, but Ahmed al-Assir, the rabble rousing Salafist cleric from Saida, has jumped on the latest summer craze and is blocking the city’s main road. This, he says, he will continue to do until the issue of non-state arms, in particular Hezbollah’s mighty arsenal, is resolved.
Another cause, another sit-in. No doubt March 8, whose so-called “government of one color” has done a spectacular job in showing us how not to run a country, will bridle at comparisons with the tactics it used in 2006, but there is very little difference. Should the army move to disperse the protestors, those whose lives were affected by the Beirut sit-in will no doubt ask where the state was when their businesses went up in smoke. On a sectarian level, it will only leave many Sunnis thinking that there is one rule for the Shia and another for them, and this is probably why Assir and his followers have not been moved on. No one should condone the behavior of Sheikh Assir – daily life must never be disrupted, nor should the offices of the state be undermined. Nor, if we are being honest, should we derive any feeling of schadenfreude from this whole mess. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Najib Mikati told his security chiefs to ensure that the airport road was never again blocked. Mikati was no doubt concerned about the potential damage to Lebanon’s tourist industry (that particular horse may have already bolted, by the way) but it appears that little has been done to protect Lebanon’s other arteries and it is yet another sign that this government and its institutions have lost their grip. We are now living with the politics of the street and, quite simply, this is no way to run a country.

Bad Lebanese role models
Hazem Saghiyeh, Now Lebanon/July 2, 2012
The Lebanese only like to imitate one another with what’s worse in them, as they constantly prove that this is a contagious and incurable disease.
Born in 1920 and consolidated in 1943, the sectarian model was sponsored at the time by the Maronite community, which was a pioneer in founding the Lebanese nation. However, instead of taking after the Maronites’ Lebanese nationalism, the others took sectarianism only. Therefore, groups became communities, one after another, in the emotional and institutional sense of the word. Even the Palestinians in Lebanon were sectarianized against a backdrop of this all-encompassing reality, and they thus became a persecuted Palestinian “community.” As a response to this persecution, they took advantage of the weakness of the Lebanese state as some of them took up arms under the myth of “liberating Palestine.” When some of the Maronites responded by taking up arms, some within the Druze community did the same in retaliation. Each of the two sides were engrossed in the myth of the “community’s dignity.” Things reached unprecedented levels when some of the Shia, in turn, took up arms and became a state that is stronger than the state and an army that is stronger than the Lebanese Armed Forces. Far from stopping at that stage, they laid the “legitimate” foundations for remaining armed until God knows when, regardless of occupation or lack thereof. Theories were spun about having armed men control all reins of power, which power is supposed to control – except for the law of course. The “Resistance myth” thus replaced those of “liberating Palestine” and the “community’s dignity.” Nowadays, the Sunni community and those on its fringes are witnessing attempts to imitate the Shia of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. These attempts are still more of a caricature, but they are likely to grow in keeping with the continuing existence of the inflated Hezbollah state. The use by Saida Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir of a slogan about humiliation, which is linked to Imam Hussein and had been – until then – solely used by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is merely a sign of this emulation. The Sunnis have found their myth, which is defined as the antithesis of Hezbollah’s. This situation merely prepares the Lebanese society to open war that destroys everyone while successive chunks are taken out of the legitimate state, which everyone claims to strive for. Under the pressure of bitterness and despair, will one rush into a bleak assumption, whereby the disaster that befalls communities one after another is the sole condition for putting an end to this cloning and to bring about a new thinking under which the nation takes precedence over the community?
Let us hope for this assumption to be wrong!
*This article is a translation of the original, which appeared on the NOW Arabic site on Monday July 2, 2012

Iran and Hezbollah to defend Syria from “attack,” PFPL-GC chief says
July 3, 2012/Now Lebanon /Hezbollah and Iran will fight alongside the Syrian regime if it is attacked by foreign forces, a pro-Damascus Palestinian militant leader said on Tuesday. In the event of "a foreign attack, we discussed with our brothers [in the Syrian regime], with [Hezbollah chief] Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and our brothers in Iran, we will be part of this battle," said Ahmad Jibril of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. In an interview with Beirut-based Mayadeen television, Jibril said that if a "Turkish-European alliance or NATO escalate... we will take to the streets and fight on behalf of all those with honor and our Syrian brothers." Jibril also cited Nasrallah as saying Hezbollah would fight on behalf of the Syrian regime, and described the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance as "one axis" that the PFLP-GC is part of. He added that he met recently with Nasrallah, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, without specifying when. He also noted that the Hezbollah chief "said he would join this battle, in the event of a foreign attack" on Syria. The Iranian regime, he said, told him it would not allow a strike on Syria. "We have warned the Turks several times not to play with fire," Jibril said. Echoing the Syrian regime's discourse, the PFLP-GC chief said the 16-month uprising against Assad was not a genuine local movement, but rather "a change in the foundations of this region in order to create a new Middle East," referring to a term coined in 2006 by former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Jibril described the defense of the Syrian regime as "a decisive battle." Victory would be necessary, he said, in order to "defeat the American and Zionist projects." The PFLP-GC is a radical Palestinian faction that is based in Damascus. -AFP/NOW Lebanon

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri cancels parliamentary session over Christian parties' boycott
July 03, 2012 /By Wassim Mroue The Daily Star
BEIRUT: Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri canceled Tuesday's legislative session due to a boycott by Lebanon’s main Christian parliamentary blocs and parties. MP Michel Aoun's Change and Reform bloc, the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb are protesting proposed legislation to make temporary Electricite du Liban workers permanent, as they believe the bill as it currently stands would lead to the underrepresentation of Christians in employees' ranks. “Only 11 items are left on Parliament’s agenda and since prominent political forces are boycotting today’s session, there won’t be a meeting,” Berri told some 47 lawmakers who showed up in Parliament for Tuesday's session. His announcement came following a meeting with Prime Minister Najib Mikati and former Prime Minsiter Fouad Siniora at his office in Parliament. Following the postponement, Siniora promised that the dispute would be settled. "The issue is going to be dealt with. Ideas are being exchanged concerning the draft law," he said. Later Tuesday, Berri summoned Parliament’s Secretariat, which normally meets at the end of legislative sessions to approve endorsed proposals. “We did not approve any of the [proposals] endorsed yesterday,” Secretariat member Antoine Zahra, an MP with the LF bloc, told reporters following the meeting at Berri’s Parliament office. Berri called another meeting of the Secretariat for Thursday.

Lebanon's Arabic press digest - July 3, 2012/The Daily Star
Lebanon's Arabic press digest.
Following are summaries of some of the main stories in a selection of Lebanese newspapers Tuesday. The Daily Star cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports.
An-Nahar
Syrian, Israeli violations of northern, southern border
Financial settlement in Parliament, split over EDL contract workers
Saudi advises its citizens not to travel to Lebanon, security plan in southern suburbs violated
Device detonated in Zrarieh as reports say Hezbollah uncovered spy network
Parliament overcame its division Monday evening and reached a settlement to the 2012 spending issue. The godfathers of the deal were former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora from the opposition and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Mikati. Head of the National Struggle Front MP Walid Jumblatt also played a pivotal role in negotiations between the two sides.
The financial settlement and the approval of a draft law to convert part-time Electricite Du Liban workers into permanent employees scored a breakthrough on the domestic level as Syrian and Israeli violations of Lebanon’s northern and southern borders took place
The violations prompted questions about the connection ... between the Syrian regime spilling the consequences of its crisis into Lebanon and Israel once again tampering with Lebanese sovereignty and international resolutions as well as fueling tension in south Lebanon.
An-Nahar has learned that the explosions [in Zrarieh] came after Hezbollah’s discovery of a new spying network among its ranks.
Al-Akhbar
Making EDL contract workers permanent threatens today's Parliament session
A “friendly and harmonious” atmosphere prevailed in Parliament Monday in a meeting that brought together the rival parties. The session was not even marred by the government spending [proposal], which lawmakers approved.
The session remained quiet until the issue of making EDL contract workers permanent was raised. Those opposing the proposal, which was approved during Monday evening's meeting, threatened to boycott today's session.
The Free Patriotic Movement contacted its opponents in the Lebanese Forces and the Kataeb [Phalange] Party in an effort to make them rally behind it in rejecting the bill.
Al-Mustaqbal
Assad’s attack in north Lebanon prompts Sleiman’s condemnation
Legislature session approves EDL permanent workers and government spending
Hezbollah deals blow to security plan
Bashar Assad's forces destroyed Lebanon’s sovereignty and national security in the north as their ally Hezbollah hit what was left of government and security prestige in Beirut’s southern suburbs, dealing a painful blow to the monthlong law enforcement initiative.
In south Lebanon, an Israeli aggression was reported: the blowing up of spying devices.
Meanwhile, the legislature endorsed a draft law to make electricity fee collectors and contract workers participate in a closed contest to become full-time employees.
Regarding Hezbollah’s preventing security forces from arresting a party member in the southern suburb of Ruwaiss, official sources told Al-Mustaqbal that Hezbollah “apparently wants security measures applied to young violators without holding party members accountable.”
Al-Joumhouria
Kataeb, Lebanese Force, [FPM] hold night meeting [about EDL]
Leaning toward boycotting Parliament’s session in protest [at decision regarding EDL]
The most prominent description that can be given to yesterday’s Parliament session is that the meeting witnessed cross alignments between March 8 and March 14.
While the rival sides reached consensus over the thorny issue of government spending, they clashed on the issue of EDL contract workers.
The Kataeb Party, the Lebanese Forces and the [FPM] objected to the hasty way the draft law was endorsed without considering the Christian parties’ rejection of random employment. They are likely to boycott today's session in protest.
A meeting was held at the end of the parliamentary session late Monday between lawmakers from the Change and Reform bloc and MPs George Adwan [Lebanese Forces] and Sami Gemayel [Kataeb]. Cabinet minister Ali Hasan Khalil joined the meeting, which lasted well into the night.

Iran says launches long-range missiles in war games exercise
By The Associated Press | The Canadian Press
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's official news agency official IRNA reports that the country's powerful Revolutionary Guards unit has launched several missiles in a military exercise. The Tuesday report says the missiles, including long-range ones capable of hitting U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf, successfully hit their targets. Iran holds several military manoeuvrs per year and the current one coincides with the beginning of a European Union oil embargo meant to pressure the country over its nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, a charge the Islamic Republic denies.

Syria running 27 torture centers: rights group
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Syrian intelligence agencies are running torture centers across the country where detainees are beaten with batons and cables, burned with acid, sexually assaulted, and their fingernails torn out, Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Tuesday. The New York-based rights group identified 27 detention centers that it says intelligence agencies have been using since President Bashar al-Assad's government began a crackdown in March 2011 on pro-democracy protesters trying to oust him. Human Rights Watch conducted more than 200 interviews with people who said they were tortured, including a 31-year-old man who was detained in the Idlib area in June and made to undress. "Then they started squeezing my fingers with pliers. They put staples in my fingers, chest and ears. I was only allowed to take them out if I spoke. The staples in the ears were the most painful," the man told Human Rights Watch. "They used two wires hooked up to a car battery to give me electric shocks. They used electric stun-guns on my genitals twice. I thought I would never see my family again. They tortured me like this three times over three days," he said. The report found that tens of thousands of people had been detained by the Department of Military Intelligence, the Political Security Directorate, the General Intelligence Directorate, and the Air Force Intelligence Directorate. Human Rights Watch documented more than 20 torture methods that "clearly point to a state policy of torture and ill-treatment and therefore constitute a crime against humanity."
The group called for the U.N. Security Council to refer the issue of Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to adopt targeted sanctions against officials carrying out abuse.
"The reach and inhumanity of this network of torture centers are truly horrific," Ole Solvang, emergencies researcher at Human Rights Watch said. "Russia should not be holding its protective hand over the people who are responsible for this."Russia - an ally of Syria - and China have already vetoed two council resolutions that condemned Damascus and threatened it with sanctions and French U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud told reporters on Monday that reaching a Security Council consensus to refer Syria to the ICC would be difficult.
"As France is concerned it's very clear we are very much in favor of referring Syria to the ICC," Araud said. "The problem is it will have to be part ... of a global understanding of the council and I do think that for the moment we have not yet reached this point," he said. U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay on Monday reiterated her position that the issue of Syria's conflict should be referred to the ICC in The Hague because crimes against humanity and other war crimes may have been committed. She said both sides appear to have committed war crimes. The United Nations has said more than 10,000 people have been killed during the 16-month Syria conflict. The complete Human Rights Watch report, which includes maps of the detention centers, can be seen here: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago-0
(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Saudi Arabia warns citizens not to travel to Lebanon
JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia | Mon Jul 2, 2012
Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has urged its citizens not to travel to Lebanon, citing concerns over security in a country shaken by the uprising in neighbouring Syria, the Foreign Ministry said on Monday.
The Saudis joined Gulf peers Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in advising citizens to stay away from Lebanon, where sectarian tensions fuelled by the revolt in Syria sparked street fighting earlier this year. "Considering the unstable situation in the Lebanese arena, the Foreign Ministry warns its citizens against travelling to Lebanon for their own safety," a Foreign Ministry official was quoted as saying on the state news agency SPA. Gulf Arab states - particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar - have thrown their weight behind the anti-government uprising in Syria, paying the salaries of members of Syrian rebel army and calling for the opposition to be armed. Wealthy tourists from Gulf states flock to Lebanon, particularly in the summer months, giving a boost to the economy that has been hit hard by unrest in Syria.
Supporters and opponents of the uprising against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have battled in the Lebanese port city of Tripoli, and the border area has been used by rebels to smuggle arms into Syria and take refuge from government troops. In April, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Lebanon to avoid Lebanon's border areas after two Saudi citizens were kidnapped and tortured for eight days. The two were later freed in a joint Saudi-Lebanese rescue operation. (Reporting by Asma Alsharif; editing by Isabel Coles and Mark Heinrich)


Rocket fired from Lebanon wounds two Syria police
02 July 2012 | 12:20 | FOCUS News Agency
Beirut. A rocket fired from Lebanon wounded two Syrian border police on Monday, Lebanon's General Security agency said in a statement, cited by AFP. "On Monday at dawn, gunmen fired a rocket from Buqaya, in Lebanese territory, towards Syria, hitting a Syrian immigration post and wounding two border police," the statement said. It is the first time that General Security has reported a shooting from Lebanon into Syrian territory. Buqaya is located in the Akkar region, 185 kilometres (115 miles) north of Beirut. "The Syrians pursued the gunmen and, during the pursuit, a Lebanese General Security post was hit," the statement added. "A Syrian unit arrived at the Lebanese post and apprehended two members of General Security, taking them into Syrian territory before releasing them."

Robert Fisk Demonizes Mideast's Persecuted Christians
by Raymond Ibrahim/PJ Media
June 28, 2012
http://www.meforum.org/3279/robert-fisk-demonizes-christians
Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the U.K.'s widely-read Independent, recently showed why it is that Islamic jihadists and terrorists, including the late Osama bin Laden, strongly recommend his propaganda to Western readers.
In a recent article, Fisk goes out of his way to demonize the abused Christian minorities of the Middle East for supporting those secularist leaders most likely to preserve their freedoms and dignity. For instance, after portraying the Middle East's "old guard" in the worst possible terms, he complains that "Ahmed Shafiq, the Mubarak loyalist, has the support of the Christian Copts, and Assad has the support of the Syrian Christians. The Christians support the dictators. Not much of a line, is it?"
In Fisk's way of thinking, Christians of Egypt and Syria are unpatriotic freedom-haters because they support secularists, whereas the Sharia-pushing Islamists are patriotic freedom-lovers for not.
"Not much of a line, is it?"—especially from someone who supposedly lives and travels in the Middle East and is deemed an authority on the region. Completely missing from his narrative is why Christians are supporting Shafiq and Assad: because the alternatives, the Islamists, have been making their lives a living hell.
Fisk's biased narrative is, of course, not original to him, but rather originates with his friends—the Islamists. Soon after the first presidential elections in Egypt, many Islamists bemoaned Shafiq's good showing, laying the blame directly on Egypt's Christian Copts, who reportedly came out in large numbers voting for the secular candidates. Tarek al-Zomor, a prominent figure of the Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the terrorist organization that slaughtered some 60 European tourists, including several of Fisk's countrymen, during the Luxor Massacre, "demanded an apology from the Copts" for voting for Shafiq, threatening that "this was a fatal error."
Others, like Abu Ismail, the Salafi presidential candidate who was disqualified, expressed "great disappointment" in "our Coptic brethren," saying that "I do not understand why the Copts so adamantly voted for Ahmed Shafiq," portraying it as some sort of conspiracy between the Copts, the old regime, and even Israel: "Exactly what relationship and benefit do the Copts have with the old regime"?
The uncritical Fisk follows suit and asks the same questions, portraying the Mideast's Christians as unpatriotic.
Missing from the Islamists'—and Fisk's—narrative is the fact that Christians are under attack by Islamists, especially in Egypt and Syria, where Christian women and children and regularly abducted, molested, and forced to convert; where churches and monasteries are regularly attacked; where blasphemy laws imprison or kill and calls for jizya are back—in short, where Christians are persecuted (see entries for Egypt and Syria in my monthly "Muslim Persecution of Christians" for an idea). Moreover, the ultimate goal of Fisk's supposedly "freedom-loving Islamists—the enforcement of a decidedly anti-freedom Sharia law—will naturally spell disaster for Christians, since this draconian law code emphatically condemns non-Muslim "infidels" to dhimmi status—barely-tolerated, second-class "citizens" of the Islamic state.
Back in the real world, the reaction to Islamist complaints that Copts are not voting for them has been one of amazement. As one Coptic activist put it: "Did they [complaining Islamists] really expect a Christian to choose a president to represent him from those who cut off the ear of a Christian, blocked the railways in objection to the appointment of a Christian governor in Qena, burn down several churches and who are diligently working to write a Constitution which undermines the rights of Christians?"
Even Egyptian Muslim writer Khaled Montasser, in an article titled "The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!" explained that the Brotherhood's own official documents and fatwas decree several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying Christian "infidels" near Muslim graves—hence why Christians are not voting for Islamists.
As for Syria, since the uprising, "opposition forces"—that is, Islamists—have been attacking Christians and churches, including through "kidnappings and gruesome murders." None of this happened before the uprising and under Assad's secular rule. As an earlier report put it, "Should Assad fall, it is feared that Syria could go the way of Iraq post-Saddam Hussein. Saddam, like Assad, restrained the influence of militant Islamists, but after his fall they were free to wreak havoc on the Christian community; hundreds of thousands of Christians were consequently forced to flee the violence."
Should the "opposition" get their way and topple the Assad regime, the same brutal pattern experienced by Iraq's Christian minorities—who have been liked to, and killed off like, dogs, to the point of nearing extinction—will come to Syria, where a preacher recently urged Muslims to "tear apart, chop up and feed" Christians who support Assad "to the dogs."
All of these "subtleties" are completely missed by the Independent's Middle East foreign correspondent. Instead, he bemoans how those in Washington who support secular rulers "will want to pump up Christian fears and frighten the West with the awfulness of 'Muslim fundamentalism.'"
At a time when Christian minorities in the Islamic world are experiencing a form of persecution unprecedented since the pre-colonial era, it is commonplace for Western "reporters" to ignore or whitewash their plight. Robert Fisk, however, takes it a step further and paints these persecuted Christians as the bad guys, thereby facilitating their ongoing sufferings. He and the Independent should be ashamed of themselves.
*Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Croaking Praises Allah
by Raymond Ibrahim • Jul 3, 2012 at 3:16 am
Cross-posted from Jihad Watch
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2012/07/new-frog-fatwa-amphibians-sacrosanct-croaking
Following the presidential victory of the Muslim Brotherhood's Muhammad Morsi, the very first fatwa to appear by Egypt's highest fatwa council addresses—not social, political, or economic issues in Egypt—but rather frogs. Specifically, it bans Muslims from hunting and killing frogs to sell to those nations that dine on the amphibians. As the fatwa explains, according to Islam's prophet Muhammad as recorded in a hadith, a frog's "croaking is praise [to Allah]." Accordingly, "a number of jurists [fuqaha] have relied on this [hadith] to forbid the eating of frogs, under the notion that 'that which is banned from being killed, is forbidden from being eaten.'"
Safe from the forces of jihad.
Unlike the many other fatwas dealing with other animals, including cartoon characters—such as the fatwa to kill Mickey Mouse—this frog fatwa is ostensibly humanitarian. Yet, in reality, it only proves how enslaved Muslim societies are to the random words of their prophet—a prophet who, on one occasion ordered the killing of all black dogs because they are "devils," while making frogs sacrosanct for praising Allah with their croaks—a prophet who, to non-Muslims, was just a 7th century Arab, whose words, obvious reflections of a 7th century mentality, millions of people still cling to today—and, hence, a prophet who is at the heart of the international dilemma widely known as "radical Islam."

The crime in Timbuktu
By Ali Ibrahim/Asharq Akawsat
The televised scenes of Ansar Dine militants - who it seems share the ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda - demolishing historic shrines and mosques with great enthusiasm in the historical city of Timbuktu in northern Mali, brought to mind the scenes of Taliban extremists in the 1990s shelling the historical Buddhas of Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan. Both events provoked the entire world, which stood by aghast as it watched people destroy examples of priceless history and human civilization with their own hands, rejoicing in their own ignorance.
This story is well known in Afghanistan, which is still suffering from the impact of a radical movement that came to prominence during a period of international conflict, a “laboratory experiment” conducted by intelligence apparatus in a country forgotten by everyone and left in poverty after the former Soviet Union had been driven out. As a result, something akin to Frankenstein’s monster emerged, and could only be controlled by a war that is still ongoing.
In Afghanistan the Taliban - in alliance with al-Qaeda - took advantage of the state of chaos that prevailed after the collapse of the communist government there, and the conflicts between various Mujahedeen warlords. The same thing has happened in the north of Mali; a country that has recently witnessed a military coup against the president, sparking chaos and leaving a vacuum that is being exploited by Tuareg separatists in the north, some of whom were previously used by Gaddafi in Libya to demand independence for the north [of Mali]. From the outset, the Tuareg allied with extremist groups with ideologies similar to that of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who then abandoned them and began to impose their own agenda and control over north Mali, seizing control of the historic city of Timbuktu, which has played an important role in Islamic history and which houses mosques dating back to the 15th century.
Who finances, trains and arms these groups? This is an open question that needs to be answered. Yet what is certain is that these movements are like locusts; invading the land and leaving it barren and ruined, only to move onto another area to spread their destruction.
The worrying thing is that this is happening on the doorstep of Arab countries, as Mali borders the Arab Maghreb. There is also a belt of these extremist groups that are being formed in the Arab countries currently experiencing changes and political instability, or in neighboring states, adding a new worrying dimension to the region’s problems.
Let us look at the map and how “terrorism gains” have been exchanged between the al-Shabab movement in Somalia and other extremist movements, most notably al-Qaeda in southern Yemen, to the extent that the Yemeni army was summoned to wage a war - with international assistance - in order to restore the seized cities in the south. Today the extremist hotspots on the map have expanded; there is now northern Mali, whilst Nigeria – another country not too far from the Arab world – suffers from the extremist group Boko Haram, which is also waging a war of terror to impose its radical ideology on the country. Extremist groups are also active in the Sahel region of Africa on the outer borders of the Maghreb in particular, taking advantage of political rivalries, forever unresolved border disputes, and the inability of the Arab Maghreb Union [AMU] to coordinate and pursue a cooperative, unified policy in the fight against terrorism. It also appears that extremist groups are exploiting the security vacuum in the Egyptian Sinai region to operate from there.
I commend the actions of the International Criminal Court [ICC], whose spokesperson threatened Ansar Dine in northern Mali with prosecution for war crimes because they have destroyed historic mosques and Islamic shrines, but this is not enough. These groups are governed by a sick ideology, and there must be coordinated international and regional work to pursue them, along the lines of what is happening now in Yemen. It would be best if the AMU states capable of doing so assumed the mantle, coordinating and delegating responsibilities to besiege these groups which will represent a real threat to them in the future, and a real source of problems if they are left unchecked. We do not want to see the day when news cameras show groups like this destroying historic monuments in an Arab capital.

Are the Friends of Syria part of the problem?
Tariq Alhomayed /Asharq Al-Awsat
In Saturday’s edition of Asharq Al-Awsat, Syrian dissident Mr. Fayez Sara wrote an op-ed entitled “Foreign interventions in Syria”, in which he talked about those who are supporting the regime, and those who are supporting the Syrian revolution. The crux of his article was that it is the regime that has benefitted from these foreign interventions, not the revolution.
The aforementioned op-ed may prove to be highly provocative, especially the part where Sara said: “The stance of the international and regional bloc that supports the popular movement in Syria is weak, hesitant and incoherent. At times, this is dominated by the media, propaganda and inherent contradictions; this fails to provide any form of serious and tangible assistance [to the revolution]”. Mr. Sara was drawing a comparison between those who support the revolution and those who support the regime, and we find that Iran and Russia are actually supporting the al-Assad regime with weapons, funding and political stances, whilst those sympathetic with the Syrian revolution do not have particularly influential or concrete stances. The truth is that what Mr. Sara argued in his article is very important and warrants much debate. I am prompted to say this after seeing some of the recent episodes of the hugely significant televised political debates being hosted by the famous American media figure Charlie Rose, such as the recent interview he conducted with current US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and former US Secretary of State James Baker. In this interview, it was surprising that Baker – a friend to many of the countries sympathetic to the Syrian revolution –said that the US should not get involved in arming the Syrian uprising and that it may be more useful to instead call for early elections in Syria. Baker added that al-Assad should be allowed to participate in these elections, which should also take place under strict international monitoring in order to prevent any election fraud. Baker argued that should al-Assad win these elections then so be it, whilst if he were to lose then he would leave power and a new president would come in!
Of course, this is an alarming oversimplification, what about the 14,000 people killed at the hands of the tyrant al-Assad? What about international laws? It is also frightening that Secretary of State Clinton says that the problem of unifying the Syrian opposition still persists. I say this is frightening because we know how America – and its allies – united the Iraqi opposition against Saddam Hussein in London, and how France and others, including some Arab states, united the Libyan opposition against Gaddafi. We also remember how France previously gave Ahmad Shah Massoud a hero’s welcome in Paris! Hence, what Mr. Sara said is important and deserves reflection because it is clear that those who are sympathizing with the Syrian opposition, whether Arab or Westerners, have failed to even convince their closest allies and influential friends in America’s decision-making circles, for example, of the importance of al-Assad’s ouster. This is something that would relieve the Syrian people’s suffering and ensuring that the region as a whole avoids an imminent threat. If this is not the case, how do we explain a politician of James Baker’s stature – a friend to the Gulf – believing that there should be no foreign intervention in Syria to support the revolutionaries, but instead calling for early elections, despite all the well-known lies of the al-Assad regime? How can we still find Hillary Clinton talking about the unification of the Syrian opposition?
Certainly there is something wrong here, and the blame lies with those who sympathize with the Syrian revolution, because there is something wrong in the way they are dealing with the tyrant of Damascus. The most prominent mistake is the lack of leadership and the failure to take responsibility in a clear manner, particularly as we are all well aware of the danger posed by the survival of the al-Assad regime or the collapse of the situation in Syria, and that this is something that will impact upon everyone without exception.

'Proud' CNN host Cooper confirms he is gay
July 03, 2012/LOS ANGELES: CNN presenter and journalist Anderson Cooper outed himself as gay Monday, saying he "couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud."
The 45-year-old confirmed what for many was common knowledge in an email to a journalist for The Daily Beast online who had asked Cooper to comment on the issue of celebrities coming out.
"Even though my job puts me in the public eye, I have tried to maintain some level of privacy in my life. Part of that has been for purely personal reasons," he wrote to journalist Andrew Sullivan.
"I think most people want some privacy for themselves and the people they are close to," he added in the email, published on the British journalist's "The Dish" blog on the Daily Beast.
But said Cooper: "Recently... I've begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle.
"It's become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something -- something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true. He continued: "The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud."
Cooper is the main anchor of the daily news show "Anderson Cooper 360" on CNN, but also had a syndicated daytime talk show, "Anderson."
His comments came after an article last week in "Entertainment Weekly" highlighting an emerging trend for gay people in public life to come out in a more restrained way than in the past.
The CNN presenter said in his email published Monday: "I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues.
"In a perfect world, I don't think it's anyone else's business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted. I'm not an activist, but I am a human being and I don't give that up by being a journalist."

Mounting Pressure on the Syrian Army
Jeffrey White /Washington Institute
July 2, 2012
Unless the army finds a way to relieve growing pressure on its capabilities and cohesion, it will likely collapse, sweeping away much of the regime in the process.
The Syrian army is Bashar al-Assad's main prop -- without it, his regime would soon fall. So far, the military has withstood the stresses associated with months of combat against an increasingly capable opposition force, the steady geographic expansion of its mission, and a stream of defections and casualties. Yet these pressures are mounting, and the army likely cannot resist them indefinitely. At some point it will break, disintegrate, or withdraw to the Alawite heartland in order to preserve remnants of the regime. Alternatively, some units may move against the regime in order to save themselves. To increase the pressure and accelerate the process, the international community should provide additional military assistance to vetted and effective armed opposition forces.
THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE WAR
Syria's internal war, pitting regime forces against the armed opposition, has been unfolding for a year now, and the nature of the fighting has evolved from intermittent, scattered clashes to more or less sustained combat across broad areas of key governorates. Fighting occurs nearly every day in Idlib, Aleppo, Homs, Hama, Deir al-Zour, Deraa, and the Damascus countryside. For example, daily clashes were reported in Deir al-Zour between June 10 and June 18, and in Rif Damascus between June 14 and June 18.
Overall, last month saw fighting in more than eighty locations across the country, up from seventy in May, with dramatic increases in Latakia and Deir al-Zour governorates. The pace of conflict between regime forces and the opposition Free Syrian Army (FSA) is accelerating, with June featuring the greatest number of clashes since the beginning of the conflict. Over 250 clashes were recorded by the opposition Local Coordination Committees and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) in their June reports.
THE CHALLENGE TO THE SYRIAN ARMY
The army faces four major stressors as the war intensifies:
Growing opposition capabilities. Syria's armed opposition forces are becoming more formidable. Despite their lack of unity and limited firepower, they have maintained support among the Sunni population, fought effectively in both urban and rural environments, employed an ever-greater number of formations with more and better weapons, created larger organizations and more effective command-and-control structures, and learned how to fight both the army and the shabbiha irregulars.
Geography. Syria is a large country with complex urban and rural terrain. In some places, lines of communication (LOCs) are long, restricted, and vulnerable to attack. For example, Damascus is around 190 miles from Aleppo, and Homs is around 225 miles from Deir al-Zour. Regime forces moving north from Damascus or east from Homs face long road marches, and LOCs are vulnerable even when distances between key points are shorter, as evidenced by the many destroyed vehicles seen along the road system. In addition, the government cannot consistently control the entire country. If regime forces are not present or nearby, FSA elements can move relatively freely in both rural and urban areas. Indeed, this is a "360 degree" war -- fighting occurs across the length and breadth of the country, and the regime must defend everywhere.
Tempo of operations. The regime has stepped up operations since mid-May, and armed opposition elements are increasing their activities as well. The sustained nature and growing intensity of the fighting have placed greater demands on regime forces. In the past several weeks, the army has had to send brigade-size or larger armored reinforcements to Aleppo and Deir al-Zour, where local forces have been unable to suppress growing resistance. Moreover, a major regime operation appears imminent in Aleppo.
Attrition. The army is facing increased attrition in men and equipment due to combat action, defections, and desertions. According to SOHR and Syrian government reporting, regime forces suffered some twenty to twenty-five personnel killed per day in June, with probably another eighty or so wounded. The Alawite-led army also suffers from what can be called "loyalty casualties," that is, Sunni soldiers it cannot trust. Some of these personnel are disarmed or detained, while others continue to undermine the army from within. Psychological attrition is no doubt a factor as well: some personnel likely do the minimum they are ordered to do or even less due to lack of identification with the regime.
THE ARMY'S PROSPECTS
The army's fate hinges on several questions. First, can it win using the strategy it has employed thus far, which focuses on wearing down the opposition? After a year of combat, that seems unlikely. The armed opposition is in fact growing in numbers, scope of action, sophistication, and intensity of operations.
Second, can the army adapt by finding new ways to use its resources? Here too, its ability seems limited. This is partially a function of the regime's approach to the conflict as a whole, which rules out a meaningful counterinsurgency strategy -- no "hearts and mind" campaign would stand a chance of separating the majority Sunni population from the FSA. Another reason lies in the nature of the army itself. With effective command in the hands of loyalist generals and regime thugs, there is not much prospect for serious analysis of the challenges and implementation of realistic solutions. Operations and tactics appear stale and unimaginative, and many actions are poorly executed. The army wins by mass and firepower, not by adroitness.
Nevertheless, some factors are still working to maintain military cohesion. Both the army and the regime retain the loyalty of Alawite personnel, very few of whom are known to have defected. Loyalty to the regime is a factor among soldiers of other persuasions as well, whether based on personal commitment or benefits in the form of position, privileges, or pay. Others fear the consequences of regime change or desertion and are therefore more motivated to remain united. In addition, because the war is not yet definitively lost, many soldiers -- especially those with a stake in the regime -- may still believe Assad will win.
The army has also taken steps to reduce the strain. It has used the largely Alawite shabbiha to support its operations, decreasing the stress on infantry and armored forces and on the loyalty of the largely Sunni rank and file. It is reportedly rotating certain combat brigades as well, allowing some to rest while others fight.
Moreover, even amid increasing pressures, the army has not yet used its full capacity for military violence. Although it has routinely employed field artillery against civilian and military targets, it could use such weapons much more widely and intensely. No place in Syria has witnessed the kind of artillery bombardment that the army is capable of inflicting. Specifically, the regime has not employed its heaviest artillery, including 180-millimeter guns and artillery rockets ranging from 220 to 333 millimeters. It could also decide to commit its fixed-wing combat air forces -- the regime has 275 aircraft designed for a ground attack or strike role, plus others that could be outfitted for such purposes.
The regime could even decide to employ chemical weapons. This step seems unlikely because of the international storm it would cause, but it cannot be ruled out. In any event, such a move would signal the regime's death throes.
OUTLOOK
Supportive factors and escalatory capabilities aside, the corrosive processes at work on the Syrian military are accumulating and accelerating. If the army cannot address these challenges, it will likely collapse, though precisely when is difficult to determine. The end could come in a rush or, more likely, through gradual disintegration.
Improving the FSA's planning, intelligence, combat, and command-and-control capabilities would presumably speed this process even further. The endgame in Syria is likely to be messy and violent in any case, but accelerating the regime's fall could limit some of the damage. Beefing up the FSA's capacity would also put it a better position to deal with the post-Assad transition. Much of the regime will be swept away if the army breaks, and the opposition must have something ready to replace it.
**Jeffrey White, a former senior defense intelligence officer, is a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.