The War Behind The Riots

There is a tendency in the media to simplify the story of the world, possibly they do it for their readers (not that readers need this simplification, but journalists think they do), but also out of a fallback towards laziness and their own ideas of "how the world must be." In addition, the errant behavior of the world community, mostly through the United Nations, in appeasing and promoting the views of the few onto whole societies and making moral relevancy a favorite pastime, has only aided the idea and perpetuation of victimhood throughout the world.

This is not to excuse cunning dictators, terror enablers, and third world theocracies from taking advantage of the world's good intentions - they have, repeatedly and rather successfully. And unfortunately this, and not just offended Muslims, is what has led to the utter chaos going on in the Middle East today.

Angry demonstrators set the Danish consulate in Beirut ablaze on Sunday and the violent turn in protests over publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad drew condemnation from European capitals and moderate Muslims.

Syrians set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies on Saturday in Damascus. They damaged the Swedish embassy and tried to storm the French mission but were held off by riot police.

Denmark is the focus for Islamic ire as images that Muslims find offensive, including one of the Prophet with a turban resembling a bomb, first appeared in a Danish daily in what has become a face-off between press freedom and religious respect.

As peaceful protests turned to ransacking Danish diplomatic offices and burning them in Syria and Lebanon, world leaders as well as prominent moderate Muslims appealed for calm and said such violence damaged the image of Islam worldwide.

"This has nothing to do with Islam at all," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told Future television. "Destabilizing security and vandalism give a wrong image of Islam. Prophet Mohammad cannot be defended this way."

In the row, newspapers have insisted on their right to print the cartoons, citing freedom of speech but for many Muslims, depicting the Prophet Mohammad causes offence.

Protests about the cartoons raged across the Muslim world at the weekend from Lahore to Gaza.

On Sunday's violence in Beirut, Mohammad Rashid Qabani, Lebanon's top Sunni Muslim cleric, said no matter how strongly Muslims felt about the cartoons they must exercise restraint.

"We don't want the expression of our condemnation (of the cartoons) to be used by some to portray a distorted image of Islam," he said. "Today is a big test for us. Let our expression of condemnation be according to the values of Islam."

It is a big test, but I think not so much for Islam. Average citizens are upset, but I think this argument goes beyond just respect for Islam. This is about national power, not daily observances and prayers and respect. Respect, other than the basic introductory politiness, is never given, it is earned, even across cultures and countries. Having diplomatic relations is supposed to be just that, friendly relations between different peoples, not a subservience of culture and society. The Muslim world can protest cartoons all they want, they can recall ambassadors and kick out diplomats, and Europe can respond in any diplomatic way it sees fit. Perhaps acceptable, perhaps not; and thus diplomacy continues. But burning Embassies, looting, calling for violence against citizens of another country - these are not "peaceful protests," these are acts of war.

Now what does this all mean? Has Europe really offended Muslim sensibilities on such a wide scale? Or is there another motive that should be considered?

Let's look at the other motive.

The recent riots and burnings took place in Lebanon and Syria. Syria is an absolute police state, secular, and tied to the last remaining vestiges of the Axis of Evil. The Syrian regime occupied Lebanon for decades, and still has agents inside. The Syrian regime has been linked, by the U.N., to the Hariri murder, has "left it's borders open to terrorists" and has been accused of accepting either production material, or the WMD itself, from Iraq. And nothing happens in Syria without the knowledge and consent of the governing regime.

These attacks would not be possible without the tacit permission or connivance (or both) of the Syrian government. At the moment Syria is facing UN censure for its role in the murder of Lebanon'’s Rafik Hariri.

In fact, when you start to think about it in depth, the questions keep coming. As Mark Steyn muses:

Even if you were overcome with a sudden urge to burn the Danish flag, where do you get one in a hurry in Gaza? Well, OK, that's easy: the nearest European Union Humanitarian Aid and Intifada-Funding Branch Office. But where do you get one in an obscure town on the Punjabi plain on a Thursday afternoon? If I had a sudden yen to burn the Yemeni or Sudanese flag on my village green, I haven't a clue how I'd get hold of one in this part of New Hampshire. Say what you like about the Islamic world, but they show tremendous initiative and energy and inventiveness, at least when it comes to threatening death to the infidels every 48 hours for one perceived offense or another. If only it could be channeled into, say, a small software company, what an economy they'd have.

I probably couldn't even produce an acceptable American Flag for them to burn - the ones you see them burning on TV look brand new - mine is getting a tad faded. But the difficulties in locating flags aside, who else might be stoking this fire?

Iran.

Iran is in the hotseat, being hauled before the Security Council for it's atomic weapons program. And yes, this time it's real.

The way to think about Iran's quest for the bomb is akin to a warm fire in a cold desert. The surrounding states, terrorists, extremists - all who hate the west - are going to instictively be drawn to this fire, and aid in maintaining it, because it is their source of warmth (protection) from the cold, and death. Syria does not have the bomb, cannot get the bomb, and Iran will not give them the bomb. But as Syria aids Iran, it falls under their protection. Terrorists, like al Qaeda, would fall under Iran's protection. Hamas, and others, would fall under Iran's protection. Extremists in Europe would fall under Iran's protection. We pushed al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, we hunt them in Africa, we are about to push them out of Iraq, but Iran will become the new - and possibly impenetrable - terror breeding ground.

Anyone want to face down a nuke to go and get them? Anyone want to watch the entire world's oil supply go radioactive? Anyone want to see Israel disappear? - and their fail-safe for turning the desert into green glass go forward? I don't think so.

Other gulf nations, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, would all be drawn into the U.S. sphere of protection - to protect them, as much also as keeping them from getting the bomb themselves.

Oh, yeah, and to those who say, "Well, just give everybody the bomb, and be done with it. No one is stupid enough to actually use it if everybody has one," - I say you are fundamentally misunderstanding the motive of religious fanatics. They don't seek stability, or power for the long term. They seek religious fulfillment. And the MAD structure that develops from an Iranian bomb is a temporary tactical move, so they may crush internal dissent first, and keep the outside world at bay. Once they eradicate the internal threat, which is very real, despite the media blackout on the democratic elements, the mullahs will be free to construct their plan for removing Israel forever. And as I've posted previously, this is a theoretical model accepted by many analysts, especially John Keegan, a widely respected historian.

Iran, moreover, does not seek such weapons for psychological reasons. It wants them for practical purposes, including, according to a statement by its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former revolutionary guard, to "wipe Israel from the map".

Bloggers like Michelle Malkin are absolutely correct when they point out that these riots are not a "row," as the media are so quick to call them. Austin Bay blog ascribes this a war. I agree. This is yet a new front in the same war that's been raging since the creation of Israel.

I feel badly for the average Muslim family who was offended by those cartoons, those and every other anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic screed. As a Catholic I was offended by "Piss Christ," the Eucharists being sold on eBay, the "art" depicting the Virgin Mary covered in feces, Rolling Stone dressing up Kanye West as a battered and thorn-crowned Jesus...honestly I could go on for pages. But that's just it, where does offense cross over into militancy? And why?

This has gone beyond protesting an offensive cartoon, and it's long past time we realized it, and identified why.