“Occupation Without Tanks or Soldiers”

 

muslimsEuropean ‘No-Go’ Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating

Post by Soeren Kern
Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of “no-go” areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

Many of the “no-go” zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of “ethnic cleansing” by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of “hate crimes” for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: “How dare you come to a Muslim area.”

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

Muslim immigrants are taking control of other parts of France too. In Paris and other French cities with high Muslim populations, such as Lyons, Marseilles and Toulouse, thousands of Muslims are closing off streets and sidewalks (and by extension, are closing down local businesses and trapping non-Muslim residents in their homes and offices) to accommodate overflowing crowds for Friday prayers. Some mosques have also begun broadcasting sermons and chants of “Allahu Akbar” via loudspeakers into the streets.

The weekly spectacles, which have been documented by dozens of videos posted on Youtube.com (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and which have been denounced as an “occupation without tanks or soldiers,” have provoked anger and disbelief. But despite many public complaints, local authorities have declined to intervene because they are afraid of sparking riots.

In the Belgian capital of Brussels (which is 20% Muslim), several immigrant neighborhoods have become “no-go” zones for police officers, who frequently are pelted with rocks by Muslim youth. In the Kuregem district of Brussels, which often resembles an urban war zone, police are forced to patrol the area with two police cars: one car to carry out the patrols and another car to prevent the first car from being attacked. In the Molenbeek district of Brussels, police have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.

In Germany, Chief Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut, in an August 1 interview with the newspaper Der Westen, revealed that Muslim immigrants are imposing “no-go” zones in cities across Germany at an alarming rate.

The interviewer asked Witthaut: “Are there urban areas – for example in the Ruhr – districts and housing blocks that are “no-go areas,” meaning that they can no longer be secured by the police?” Witthaut replied: “Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier. The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas crimes no longer result in charges. They are left ‘to themselves.’ Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture.”

In Italy, Muslims have been commandeering the Piazza Venezia in Rome for public prayers. In Bologna, Muslims repeatedly have threatened to bomb the San Petronio cathedral because it contains a 600-year-old fresco inspired by Dante’s Inferno which depicts Mohammed being tormented in hell.

In the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the government to release to the public a politically incorrect list of 40 “no-go” zones in Holland. The top five Muslim problem neighborhoods are in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim “problem district” in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam – Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).

In Sweden, which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, large swaths of the southern city of Malmö – which is more than 25% Muslim – are “no-go” zones for non-Muslims. Fire and emergency workers, for example, refuse to enter Malmö’s mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts. The male unemployment rate in Rosengaard is estimated to be above 80%. When fire fighters attempted to put out a fire at Malmö’s main mosque, they were attacked by stone throwers.

In the Swedish city of Gothenburg, Muslim youth have been hurling petrol bombs at police cars. In the city’s Angered district, where more than 15 police cars have been destroyed, teenagers have also been pointing green lasers at the eyes of police officers, some of whom have been temporarily blinded.

In Gothenburg’s Backa district, youth have been throwing stones at patrolling officers. Gothenburg police have also been struggling to deal with the problem of Muslim teenagers burning cars and attacking emergency services in several areas of the city.

According to the Malmö-based Imam Adly Abu Hajar: “Sweden is the best Islamic state.”

MUSLIM RADICALS IN OBAMA’S (OUR) WHITE HOUSE « Paw Creek Ministries

MUSLIM RADICALS IN OBAMA’S (OUR) WHITE HOUSE « Paw Creek Ministries.

Hezbollah Threatens to Invade Israel’s Galilee, And Offers Interactive Infographic on How It Plans to Do It

Hezbollah Threatens to Invade Israel’s Galilee, And Offers Interactive Infographic on How It Plans to Do It.

Syria Islamists: ‘Next Stop Israel’

Syria Islamists: ‘Next Stop Israel’.

Three Star General: Muslim Brotherhood Has Infiltrated Our Government

Three Star General: Muslim Brotherhood Has Infiltrated Our Government.

The Wars of Ezekiel 29, Isaiah 17:1 and Psalm 83

Published by AL Beebe

For a while now I have been watching things happen in the middle east and especially with Israel and been thinking a lot about what I have seen transpire. And been putting off writing this for a while now but The Lord has been pushing me to get this out. It concerns Ezekiel 29, Isaiah 17:1 and Psalm 83. There are 2 main scenarios I see developing.

Israel strikes Iran either with conventional air strike directly on their nuke weapons site or with an EMP strike ( Electro Magnetic Pulse) burst. I will discuss later why I think this is more likely.
Once Israel strikes Iran ( which they have no choice but to do, eventually Iran will obtain a nuke and it will be game on), the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, allied with Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas will attack Israel from all sides.

Hamas- just signed a binding agreement with Iran to side with them in the event of war with Israel. They will attack with some 50,000 troops and some 50,000 to 60,000 rockets from Gaza and make a run on the border with Israel.

Hezbollah- Has 5 divisions stationed across from Galilee that is approx. 50,000 troops, and will make a run for Galilee in a blitzkrieg looking to cause as much damage as possible military, civilian, women or children it will make no difference to them.

  Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood- Egypthas moved 200-300 M60 Persing tanks into the Sinai in direct violation of the 1978-79 peace agreement with Israel as well as surface to surface anti-ship missiles, and several thousand troops. And only the Lord Know what else, and you can be the recent attack on Israel southern border was a probe to test for weakness. Actually that was the second such

 attack in the last month.

Why I believe Iran and Turkey will directly sit this one out. Iran will use their pawns as mentioned above to do their dirty work without risking a direct attack against Israel. That is if Israel hasn’t EMP’s them already. And remember Iran (aka Persia) has to be around for the battle of Gog and Magog, as well as Turkey.

  Ezekiel 29- States basically Egypt will be no more it will be layed waste for 40 years. How no one knows but based on current events it could very well be battle related. Back in 1940-1950 Egypt approached the UN and US to help them build the Aswan High Dam to help control the Nile River and to produce electric. Well there was a coup where Nasser took over and due to being communistic the UN and US backed out and Russia stepped in and agreed to help.
  Well what resulted was the Aswan High Dam. The Aswan High Dam is 3,830 metres long, 980 metres wide at the base, 40 metres wide at the crest and 111 metres tall. It contains 43 million cubic metres of material. At maximum, 11,000 cubic metres per second of water can pass through the dam. There are further emergency spillways for an extra 5,000 cubic metres per second and the Toshka Canal l

inks the reservoir to the Toshka Depression. The reservoir, named Lake Nasser, is 550 km long and 35 km at it’s widest with a surface area of 5,250 square kilometres. It holds 132 cubic kilometres of water. They actually bragged that nothing but a nuke could destroy the dam. Israel has made the statement in the past if they ever were attacked by Egypt in the future they would do just that and nuke the dam. All of Egypt’s population other than the Sinai is along the Nile River. It would effectively wipe out Egypt. Never before in Egypt’s history has it been laid waste it has never gone out of existence since before Abraham.
  Isaiah 17:1- basically talks about Damascus being a smoldering heap. Now the question remains to be seen is this because of the civil war going on inside, or from outside forces.
Israel already issued a warning to Syria several years ago that if one missile or rocket fell on Israel from Syria, Israel would start with Damascus and nuke every Syrian city. And based on what I mentioned earlie

r about Iran moving a ton of troops into Syria so I believe they can launch an attack on Israel.

The Samson option- We need also to remember Israel has the Sampson Option- We remember from the bible that Sampson prayed to the Lord to give him strength to bring down the palace killing his and Israel’s enemies and thus killing himself. Israel always launches plans with nukes on board anytime they are involved in a conflict just in case it escalates and they are in danger of being overrun.

  After this happens the world will cry for Israel’s blood. And this will set up Ezekiel 38-39 the battle of Gog and Magog. And if notice Egypt and Syria is not mentioned anywhere in that coalition. And there is no reason for the Lord not to mention them by name and instead mention a lesser country like Ethiopia which is modern day Sudan and Cush (Libya, Tunisia, and Morocco) unless Egypt and Syria is no longer there. And why not attack from the south by Sudan and Cush because Egypt is radioactive from the nuke strike on the dam all that irradiated water came pouring out and swamped the land of Egypt so they must attack from the north.
  And another reason I don’t believe Syria is there anymore because based on what God said in the bible about the size of the army that will attack from the north it will take Israel 7 years to clean up after the battle and they will be able to burn the left over fuel for 7 years without taping their own reserves. Assad of Syria is such an egomaniac he would never allow an army that size to come through his country unless he is not there.
  Scenario 2 plays out the same basically except one of the enemies of Israel or another attack first and then the rest join in. And maybe Israel seizing the opportunity to EMP Iran figuring things are about as bad as they can be and they have nothing to lose.
  Why and EMP attack- Basically Israel’s options are limited to fly a very long way over hostile territory and have to refuel midair ( which they can do, they have the ability) and loose any element of surprise.
And I wouldn’t put it past Obama to try and stop them by either directly intercepting Israeli planes as they fly over the Persian Gulf or by alerting Iran they are coming. He is not to be trusted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  All Israel would have to do is get one of their Subs into the Arabian sea and launch a tactical nuke and detonate it in the atmosphere above Iran and it would burn up every electronic device, communications, electric, radar, some vehicles, etc. etc. gone. It would through Iran back into the Stone Age overnight, and would be much more effective in stopping their nuke program than a direct strike. And much more friendly to the civilians than a nuke strike or a direct strike on their nuke facilities due to radioactive fallout from their factories and such.
  About 2 years prior Israel purchased several dolphin class subs from Germany and retrofitted them with ballistic missiles (tactical nukes). As well there have been reports that Israel is sitting on a lot of secret weapons that even the United States is unaware of.
And above all we need to remember Israel has one secret weapon that everyone always forgets about
GOD!!!!!!!!!!!! They always underestimate Gods promise to protect the apple of HIS eye.

This is just my opinion based on what I see going on. I could be wrong but what I have seen especially in the last couple weeks says it will go down very similar to this. However it happens it appears we will soon find out.

I Believe we will ( as Christians see Ezek 29 and Issiah 17 and Pslam 83 fullfilled). Then I believe some time before Ezekial 38-39 we will see the rapture, and we will be gone.

Sincerely
Your Brother in Christ
AL Beebe

 

This week on ‘The Hal Lindsey Report’


Unless you’ve been vacationing on a desert island or only get your news from the mainstream media, you know that terrorists attacked the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11. In their vicious attack, they killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, the US envoy to Libya. They also killed three other Americans who served the US mission to Libya.

Earlier that day, rioters attacked the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt. They breached the walls, tore down the American flag, and ripped it apart. They trashed the place and hoisted the flag of al-Qaeda. They screamed their hatred for the United States and Israel. Common among the chants was, “Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas.”

They held high pictures of Osama bin-Laden; they waved the al-Qaeda flag; and they did it all on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Both US missions had been informed up to two days prior to the attacks that events were being planned. Yet neither appeared to take precautionary steps. (Unless you count a “preemptory apology” issued by the embassy in Cairo prior to the demonstrations!)

Instead, it appears the administration was caught totally flat-footed. In fact, until Thursday of this week, all administration spokespersons have insisted that all of the attacks and protests (which have now occurred in more than twenty countries) have been “spontaneous” responses to the posting of a 14-minute promotional video for an unbelievably cheesy and amateurish movie that “denigrates” Islam and its founder, Mohammed.

Never mind that the “movie trailer” has been available on the internet for several months (some reports claim it’s been available for most of a year); that the movie itself has only been seen by about a dozen people; that the embassies were warned by members of the host governments and others in the intelligence community that the attacks were being planned; that the initial crowds in Cairo were shouting al-Qaeda slogans and holding pictures and flags; that al-Qaeda’s leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri had called for revenge after the US killed al-Qaeda’s number two man in a drone strike in June; that it was the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks; that members of Sheikh Abdel Rahman’s (“The Blind Sheikh” responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center) family were helping lead the demonstrations; and the list goes on.

While it is true that many of the demonstrations across the Middle East since then have focused on the movie trailer, it is almost universally acknowledged by everyone outside of the administration (especially foreign governments and intelligence sources), that the movie was, at best, a pretext for the first attacks on American embassies and properties. Attacks have also been focused on assets of nations like Great Britain, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland.

Of course, since it’s only a few weeks before the general election, it’s understandable that the American government doesn’t want to acknowledge the complete failure and collapse of its foreign policy, especially its misguided dealings with the Muslim nations of the world.

But it’s not only the current administration that’s to blame. I have often said that President Bush’s push to “democratize” the Muslim world was well-intentioned but naive. I believe that it is almost totally impossible for democracy to take root in a truly Islamic society. Everything in Islam’s structure and teaching opposes the fundamental principles of a democratic society. So not only are those fledgling “democratic” nations doomed to failure, their hopeful citizens become nothing more than pawns or tools in the greater Islamic goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate.

I think that’s what the last few days across northern Africa have been all about: the total rejection of Western ideals and principles and a declaration of the Muslims’ hatred for all things western and Judeo-Christian.

From a prophetic perspective, I think it’s interesting that when you look at a map depicting all the hot spots we’ve been hearing about the past couple of weeks, it’s a pretty accurate picture of the nations that will eventually comprise the “Kings of the South” that the prophet Daniel described.

But the Obama and Bush administrations aren’t alone when it comes to naive US efforts that will ultimately bring grief to America. I believe President Clinton’s championing of The Oslo Accords, which were signed in 1993, have put America on the fast-track to the curses that God pronounced on those who harm the descendants of Abraham. The insistence on the suicidal land-for-peace roadmap to a “two-state solution” has accomplished nothing more than put Israel’s survival at risk and, I fear, ours, too.

Jerusalem and the land of Israel is not the Arabs’ nor the Jews’, it is God’s land and He will give it to whom He pleases. And it pleased Him to promise it by sacred covenant to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He also promised that those who tried to take the land, and those who helped them, would suffer His displeasure.

President Harry Truman recognized the new nation of Israel just 11 minutes after its birth. And from 1948 into the 1990′s, America experienced prosperity and power unparalleled in history. But the last two decades have seen America become entangled in wars across the globe; mired in debt from which there will be no escape; and exhausted from culture wars that threaten her very essence. Is this decline connected to our attempt to “lift the burdensome stone” that Zechariah warned about? I believe so.

Maybe the experience of our neighbor to the north can shed some light on the question. Last week, Canada chose to stand with Israel. It closed its embassy in Tehran and kicked Iran’s diplomats out of Canada. Canadian leaders cited Iran’s intransigence on its nuclear weapons program and the threat it poses to Israel, as well as the danger foreign diplomats face in Iran. (Remember America’s experience there?)

But this isn’t the first time Canada has stood with Israel. In fact, critics say that Prime Minister Stephen Harper‘s support for the nation of Israel cost Canada a seat on the UN Security Council two years ago.

So is it coincidence that even though the United States is Canada’s biggest trading partner, our economic woes seem to be having little impact on our neighbor? In fact, while our unemployment rate is reaching historic highs (up to 20% if we’re realistic), Canada’s are reaching historic lows. While each taxpayer in America owes more than $140,000 toward our national debt, Canada’s taxpayer only shoulders a burden of $17,000. While the United States’ economy is collapsing, Canada’s is booming.

One nation is standing with Israel. One is distancing itself. Care to guess which is which?

PROGRAMMING NOTE: “The Hal Lindsey Report” will not be seen on Inspiration Network this Sunday. It’s Fall Campmeeting time at Inspiration!

Don’t miss this week’s Report on TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, various local stations http://www.hallindsey.com or http://www.hischannel.com. Please check your local listings.

Just a reminder to keep your eye on my website. You can find the top stories of the week so you can stay informed about what’s happening in the world. Also, each week I post brief video commentaries about interesting Bible questions and hot topics. So check out “Hal on the Hot Seat” at http://www.hallindsey.com . And, of course, you can always find the current edition of “The Hal Lindsey Report,” as well as archived editions, on demand.
God Bless,
Hal Lindsey
mail: HLMM, P.O. Box 470470, Tulsa, OK 74147
email: comments@hallindsey.com
web: http://www.hallindsey.com

From Gadhafi to Benghazi

Colonel Gaddafi (Pic: Reuters)


Click to show "Benghazi" result 12

By George Friedman

Last week, four American diplomats were killed when armed men attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attackers’ apparent motivation was that someone, apparently American but with an uncertain identity, posted a video on YouTube several months ago that deliberately defamed the Prophet Mohammed. The attack in Benghazi was portrayed as retribution for the defamation, with the attackers holding all Americans equally guilty for the video, though it was likely a pretext for deeper grievances. The riots spread to other countries, including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, although no American casualties were reported in the other riots. The unrest appears to have subsided over the weekend.

Benghazi and the Fall of Gadhafi

In beginning to make sense of these attacks, one must observe that they took place in Benghazi, the city that had been most opposed to Moammar Gadhafi. Indeed, Gadhafi had promised to slaughter his opponents in Benghazi, and it was that threat that triggered the NATO intervention in Libya. Many conspiracy theories have been devised to explain the intervention, but, like Haiti and Kosovo before it, none of the theories holds up. The intervention occurred because it was believed that Gadhafi would carry out his threats in Benghazi and because it was assumed that he would quickly capitulate in the face of NATO air power, opening the door to democracy.

That Gadhafi was capable of mass murder was certainly correct. The idea that Gadhafi would quickly fall proved incorrect. That a democracy would emerge as a result of the intervention proved the most dubious assumption of them all. What emerged in Libya is what you would expect when a foreign power overthrows an existing government, however thuggish, and does not impose its own imperial state: ongoing instability and chaos.

The Libyan opposition was a chaotic collection of tribes, factions and ideologies sharing little beyond their opposition to Gadhafi. A handful of people wanted to create a Western-style democracy, but they were leaders only in the eyes of those who wanted to intervene. The rest of the opposition was composed of traditionalists, militarists in the Gadhafi tradition and Islamists. Gadhafi had held Libya together by simultaneously forming coalitions with various factions and brutally crushing any opposition.

Opponents of tyranny assume that deposing a tyrant will improve the lives of his victims. This is sometimes true, but only occasionally. The czar of Russia was clearly a tyrant, but it is difficult to argue that the Leninist-Stalinist regime that ultimately replaced him was an improvement. Similarly, the Shah of Iran was repressive and brutal. It is difficult to argue that the regime that replaced him was an improvement.

There is no assurance that opponents of a tyrant will not abuse human rights just like the tyrant did. There is even less assurance that an opposition too weak and divided to overthrow a tyrant will coalesce into a government when an outside power destroys the tyrant. The outcome is more likely to be chaos, and the winner will likely be the most organized and well-armed faction with the most ruthless clarity about the future. There is no promise that it will constitute a majority or that it will be gentle with its critics.

The intervention in Libya, which I discussed in The Immaculate Intervention, was built around an assumption that has little to do with reality — namely, that the elimination of tyranny will lead to liberty. It certainly can do so, but there is no assurance that it will. There are many reasons for this assumption, but the most important one is that Western advocates of human rights believe that, when freed from tyranny, any reasonable person would want to found a political order based on Western values. They might, but there is no obvious reason to believe they would.

The alternative to one thug may simply be another thug. This is a matter of power and will, not of political philosophy. Utter chaos, an ongoing struggle that leads nowhere but to misery, also could ensue. But the most important reason Western human rights activists might see their hopes dashed is due to a principled rejection of Western liberal democracy on the part of the newly liberated. To be more precise, the opposition might embrace the doctrine of national self-determination, and even of democracy, but go on to select a regime that is in principle seriously opposed to Western notions of individual rights and freedom.

While some tyrants simply seek power, other regimes that appear to Westerners to be tyrannies actually are rather carefully considered moral systems that see themselves as superior ways of life. There is a paradox in the principle of respect for foreign cultures followed by demands that foreigners adhere to basic Western principles. It is necessary to pick one approach or the other. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that someone can have very distinct moral principles, be respected, and yet be an enemy of liberal democracy. Respecting another moral system does not mean simply abdicating your own interests. The Japanese had a complex moral system that was very different from Western principles. The two did not have to be enemies, but circumstances caused them to collide.

The NATO approach to Libya assumed that the removal of a tyrant would somehow inevitably lead to a liberal democracy. Indeed, this was the assumption about the Arab Spring in the West, where it was thought that that corrupt and tyrannical regimes would fall and that regimes that embraced Western principles would sprout up in their place. Implicit in this was a profound lack of understanding of the strength of the regimes, of the diversity of the opposition and of the likely forces that would emerge from it.

In Libya, NATO simply didn’t understand or care about the whirlwind that it was unleashing. What took Gadhafi’s place was ongoing warfare between clans, tribes and ideologies. From this chaos, Libyan Islamists of various stripes have emerged to exploit the power vacuum. Various Islamist groups have not become strong enough to simply impose their will, but they are engaged in actions that have resonated across the region.

The desire to overthrow Gadhafi came from two impulses. The first was to rid the world of a tyrant, and the second was to give the Libyans the right to national self-determination. Not carefully considered were two other issues: whether simply overthrowing Gadhafi would yield the conditions for determining the national will, and whether the national will actually would mirror NATO’s values and, one should add, interests.

Unintended Consequences

The events of last week represent unintended and indirect consequences of the removal of Gadhafi. Gadhafi was ruthless in suppressing radical Islamism, as he was in other matters. In the absence of his suppression, the radical Islamist faction appears to have carefully planned the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack was timed for when the U.S. ambassador would be present. The mob was armed with a variety of weapons. The public justification was a little-known video on YouTube that sparked anti-American unrest throughout the Arab world.

For the Libyan jihadists, tapping into anger over the video was a brilliant stroke. Having been in decline, they reasserted themselves well beyond the boundaries of Libya. In Libya itself, they showed themselves as a force to be reckoned with — at least to the extent that they could organize a successful attack on the Americans. The four Americans who were killed might have been killed in other circumstances, but they died in this one: Gadhafi was eliminated, no coherent regime took his place, no one suppressed the radical Islamists, and the Islamists could therefore act. How far their power will grow is not known, but certainly they acted effectively to achieve their ends. It is not clear what force there is to suppress them. It is also not clear what momentum this has created for jihadists in the region, but it will put NATO, and more precisely the United States, in the position either of engaging in another war in the Arab world at a time and place not of its choosing, or allowing the process to go forward and hoping for the best.

As I have written, a distinction is frequently drawn between the idealist and realist position. Libya is a case in which the incoherence of the distinction can be seen. If the idealist position is concerned with outcomes that are moral from its point of view, then simply advocating the death of a tyrant is insufficient. To guarantee the outcome requires that the country be occupied and pacified, as was Germany or Japan. But the idealist would regard this act of imperialism as impermissible, violating the doctrine of national sovereignty. More to the point, the United States is not militarily in a position to occupy or pacify Libya, nor would this be a national priority justifying war. The unwillingness of the idealist to draw the logical conclusion from their position, which is that simply removing the tyrant is not the end but only the beginning, is compounded by the realist’s willingness to undertake military action insufficient for the political end. Moral ends and military means must mesh.

Removing Gadhafi was morally defensible but not by itself. Having removed him, NATO had now adopted a responsibility that it shifted to a Libyan public unequipped to manage it. But more to the point, no allowance had been made for the possibility that what might emerge as the national will of Libya would be a movement that represented a threat to the principles and interests of the NATO members. The problem of Libya was not that it did not understand Western values, but that a significant part of its population rejected those values on moral grounds and a segment of the population with battle-hardened fighters regarded them as inferior to its own Islamic values. Somewhere between hatred of tyranny and national self-determination, NATO’s commitment to liberty as it understood it became lost.

This is not a matter simply confined to Libya. In many ways it played out throughout the Arab world as Western powers sought to come to terms with what was happening. There is a more immediate case: Syria. The assumption there is that the removal of another tyrant, in this case Bashar al Assad, will lead to an evolution that will transform Syria. It is said that the West must intervene to protect the Syrian opposition from the butchery of the al Assad regime. A case can be made for this, but not the simplistic case that absent al Assad, Syria would become democratic. For that to happen, much more must occur than the elimination of al Assad.

Wishful Thinking vs. Managing the Consequences

In 1958, a book called The Ugly American was published about a Southeast Asian country that had a brutal, pro-American dictator and a brutal, communist revolution. The novel had a character who was a nationalist in the true sense of the word and was committed to human rights. As a leader, he was not going to be simply an American tool, but he was the best hope the United States had. An actual case of such an ideal regime replacement was seen in 1963 in Vietnam, when Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam was killed in a coup. He had been a brutal pro-American dictator. The hope after his death was that a decent, nationalist liberal would replace him. There was a long search for such a figure; he never was found.

Getting rid of a tyrant when you are as powerful as the United States and NATO are, by contrast, is the easy part. Saddam Hussein is as dead as Gadhafi. The problem is what comes next. Having a liberal democratic nationalist simply appear to take the helm may happen, but it is not the most likely outcome unless you are prepared for an occupation. And if you are prepared to occupy, you had better be prepared to fight against a nation that doesn’t want you determining its future, no matter what your intentions are.

I don’t know what will come of Libya’s jihadist movement, which has showed itself to be motivated and capable and whose actions resonated in the Arab world. I do know that Gadhafi was an evil brute who is better off dead. But it is simply not clear to me that removing a dictator automatically improves matters. What is clear to me is that if you wage war for moral ends, you are morally bound to manage the consequences.

From Gadhafi to Benghazi is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor

Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor

REPORT: U.S. ATTACK ON IRAN RISKS REGIONAL WAR

Report: U.S. attack on Iran risks regional war

Iranian President Mahmoud AhmadinejadPhoto Credit:AP

U.S. military strikes on Iran would shake the regime’s political control and damage its ability to launch counterstrikes, but the Iranians probably would manage to retaliate, directly and through surrogates, in ways that risked igniting all-out war in the Middle East, according to an assessment of an attack’s costs and benefits.

The assessment said extended U.S. strikes could destroy Iran’s most important nuclear facilities and damage its military forces but would only delay — not stop — the Islamic republic‘s pursuit of a nuclear bomb.

“You can’t kill intellectual power,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney, who endorsed the report. He is a former deputy director at the National Counterterrorism Center and former deputy commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

Related Articles

Must ReadRight Now on Times 24|7!

Read the original article at Associated Press

Associated Press
Read more:http://times247.com/articles/report-u-s-attack-on-iran-would-risk-regional-war#ixzz26QkNQHVl

Report: Despite Warnings, Clinton Left Embassy Vulnerable

U.S. Secretary of State Clinton criticized as post-riot findings show chaos, poor security at Libya consulate.
A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound in Benghazi

A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound in Benghazi
AFP photo

The United States consulate in Libya where an ambassador and three others were killed was poorly guarded, according to reports in British media. The building lacked bulletproof glass, reinforced doors, and other features normally used to secure diplomatic staff.

The Benghazi consulate was not guarded by the usual contingent of U.S. Marines. Instead, protection was provided primarily by local guards, who fled when an angry mob approached. “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs,” local man Ali Fetori told the Independent.

The building’s perimeter was breached within 15 minutes of the mob assault.

In addition, Ambassador Christopher Stevens was reportedly missing for several hours after the attack. U.S. State Department officials say Stevens was separated from his security team “due to the heavy, dark smoke” as rioters attacked the building. His body was seen by consulate staff only hours later, after Libyan citizens took him to a hospital.

Making matters worse is the report in the Independent that the State Department had prior warning of the violent assault. “According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted,” the report stated.

Earlier media reports revealed that one of the slain diplomats, informationmanagement officer Sean Smith, had noticed suspicious people taking pictures hours before the assault and wondered in an online forum if he and other staff would “die tonight.”

State Department officials now say that the assault in Benghazi was “clearly a planned attack.”

The Breitbart news site said Thursday night, “Why wasn’t there better protection at the consulate? Because that’s the way Secretary of State Clinton wanted it… Secretary of State Clinton is responsible for the security of our staff, consulates and embassies abroad. If the Independent’s report is correct, she has violated the most basic standard of duty. Both she and her boss, President Obama, must be held responsible.”

In the wake of the attack U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered that security be tightened at U.S. embassies worldwide. The U.S. has also launched a manhunt for the terrorists behind the Benghazi attack.

SOURCE