| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Siniora tells terrorists in Lebanon: Surrender or Die |
| 2007-06-02 |
| The Battle for Nahr al-Bared began this morning. The intense Lebanese army artillery fire on the Palestinian refugee camp appears to be the beginning of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's plan to eliminate the Islamist Fatal al-Islam faction if negotiations for its surrender failed to produce results. Now, he says, Lebanese authorities have evidence that Syrian intelligence operatives are behind the ongoing violent clashes in a Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli as part of an effort to destabilize the country. Siniora also says that Syrian elements, pursuing what he calls "a clear determination to subjugate the country," could be responsible for political killings in Lebanon including the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Siniora accused the Syrian regime of trying to intimidate Lebanese from supporting the court and said that the pursuit of justice entailed risks, including "instability in the country... planting bombs here and there." But Siniora says that his government is determined to push forward with the tribunal as well as uproot the Islamist faction with alleged Syrian links at the center of the Tripoli fighting to prove Lebanon's independence. "Otherwise," he said, "everybody can dare to slap us on the face." The message "to all criminals or those who are against the state," he added, would be "that they can continue committing crimes and there is impunity." A major benefit of the tribunal, Siniora says, is that more witnesses may be willing to provide evidence of crimes in Lebanon to U.N. investigators knowing that it will be used in an international court. Here's the full transcript on the Tripoli crisis from my time.com interview with Siniora Thursday afternoon: TIME: What is the government’s plan for resolving the Tripoli crisis? Siniora: This is a group of people who came into Lebanon, assembled in Lebanon, and acquired the name Fatah al-Islam. They are completely innocent of these two names. They have nothing to do with Islam and nothing to do with Palestine. They are a group, actually, of terrorists. They were the people behind the two bombs that exploded in the two buses [on Feb. 14] and killed a number of civilians. This is not an accusation. This is a confession that was made when we arrested a number of them. They later on made several robberies. The internal security forces were about to storm the apartment they were in, when simultaneously the army was attacked. It started that way. I could have said, “OK, they slapped me in the face, sorry gentlemen, I cannot do anything.” Then why I am I here as the state? What's your plan for dealing with Fatah al-Islam? I have plenty of problems, yes. The only thing I can do is stand fast on behalf of all the Lebanese. I would say this is a terrorist attack and we have to fight back. How to fight back? We have to use all means. That’s why I invoted all the Palestinian [leaders] to come in the second day, in the morning. They came in and I put the matter in front of them. All of them said we condemn what happend, we disassociate and distance ourselves from this and we are ready to help in putting an end to this phenomenon. They are still making negotiations. Yes, I want to find a peaceful splution. A peaceful solution means what? These people have to surrender themslve to the Lebanese state. We can assure them they will have a very fair trial. Those who are part in the crime, they will have to be sentenced. Our position is that we cannot tolerate the continuation of such terrorist groups in the camp. [Fatah al-islam] has been really attacking the Lebanese army and security. They have to surrender themselves to Lebanese justice. This is not a fight between Palestinians and Lebanese. This is a fight between Lebanese and Palestinians on one hand, and the terrorists on the other. This group in particular is against the Palestinian cause. Every Palestinian leader is agreeing with me. It is not in their intersst to be associated with terrorists like that. They are agreeable and showing ways and means to cooperate. We are trying to convince these terrorists to surrender themlseves. They may or they may not. But in the meantime, the army has the responsibility. Civilians are still there. We have to be very careful about them. The total population of the camp is about 32-33,000 people. What is left is slightly above 3,000. The remaining already moved to other camps and other places. We are taking care of them. This is our responsibility to take care of them. That is what we are doing. The Council of Ministers asked the Lebanese army to look into the matter and see how this can be treated in case we fail to achieve results through political means. Then the army is entitled to make all the surgical arrangements to uproot them from that camp. It is not in the interests of the camp or the people of the camp. What I'm saying clearly to the people of the camp is that you are moved from your camp into another place, to really make sure you are secure. At same time we are undertaking that you will get back to your place, and we undertake to rebuild that which has been destroyed. What is your timetable for negotiations? We are working on this matter in the best manner possible, assessing the matter from all aspects. We are confident that we are within the time that we have allotted to ourselves. Is there a deadline for the negotiations? Days. Definitely, I’m not saying months. Does the army have the capacity to solve this by military means? The army can put the plan that can guarantee achieving the objective with the least effort and least cost. At the end of the day, there is no solution that doesn’t have a side effect. Tell me about any country that had to face a problem like we are in, made by terrorists, and how did they act? The army cannot afford not to be successful. Is there a danger of the clashes spreading to other Palestinian camps? There is this risk. But this is not in the interests of the Palestinians. What about Lebanese groups joining in? And not in interests of Lebanese, I don’t think, because this will mean lots of instability that is not in the interests of even the outside parties that have an interest in Lebanon. Because this has major repercussions. It is said Fatah al-Islam is linked to Syria. To Syrian intelligence. This is exactly what I have heard from the interrogators [of 20 arrested suspects]. That there are some connections with some Syrian intelligence. Now whether this Syrian intelligence [operatives] are working on their own, or guided by higher superiors, I don’t know. We’ll have to find out. What was the connection? In the way they were assembled, the way they came, the way they got their ammunition and arms, in the way they were discussing and developing their plans and so on. I’m not talking about a telephone call. I prefer not to get into more specifics than that. Why would Syria support such a group? Why did they choose 13 February to make this first crime? To discourage people from participating in 14 February demonstration [marking the anniversary of Hariri's assassination]. Why make this last attack on Lebanese army? To discourage the Lebanese, and the Lebanese army, from taking any effort towards further consolidation of the country. And at same time, make the country as a whole more vulnerable. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 Hear, hear Gladys! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-06-02 10:01 |
| #15 It just occurred to me that I sound like Al Q in the above comment - giving the infidels the chance to convert or die. But I guess that is what it all boils down to in the end. Our way of life or theirs - by force if necessary. |
| Posted by: Gladys 2007-06-02 07:39 |
| #14 Zenster, Islam may be incapable of change but I have hope that many muslims are reasonable people. Even if that means they are considered apostates by the hard-core islamists. If we can promote the idea (the reality really) that these islamists are just nasty, violent gangsters cloaking themselves with islam then the ordinary muslims can throw off the islamist mantle and, hopefully, get on with (ordinary) life. Well, that's my hope anyway. We have to first give them a chance and if that fails then we have no choice but to utterly defeat them. |
| Posted by: Gladys 2007-06-02 07:08 |
| #13 Muslims who act as translators for the U.S. military We've also seen a fair share of Muslims in our military who commit murder and treason. The practice of taqiyya makes Muslims wholly unrelaible. Islam's overwhelming inertia with respect to cleaning its own house of jihadist filth is a powerful indicator of what we should expect overall. the Iraqis who rose up to battle al Qaeda elements in their towns recently While I appreciate your optimism, GP,there are many experts who would deem it to be misplaced. Just because Iraqis have opposed al Qaeda is no assurance that they intend to assist our own military efforts in any meaningful way. My own view is that they are protecting their turf from rival gangsters with no intention of actually taking on America's enemies. But just as Christians and Jews have advanced beyond the ancient literal roots and practices of their doctrinal tracts (stoning, eye-for-an-eye as justice, etc.) yet can retain their core beliefs in our modern world, there exist a great many nominal Muslims who can also make such distinctions. Again, I think you overestimate Islam's capacity for change. Ijtihad literally has no place in modern Islam. Al-Ghazali closed the door upon such innovation and reinterpretation some thousand years ago. Islamic doctrine is trapped in amber with apostasy and death the reward for any attempt at modification. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-02 04:27 |
| #12 GP, while I understand the notion you are attempting to convey, you are severely mistaken if you think that Muslims of any sort will ever be our "ally" in any meaningful way. I respectfully disagree, and I could cite examples ranging from Muslims who act as translators for the U.S. military, the Iraqis who rose up to battle al Qaeda elements in their towns recently, and the citizens of reasonable countries such as Turkey or Jordan. Yes, the Quran when interpreted literally is a 7th century handbook for subjugation and Islamic expansion. But just as Christians and Jews have advanced beyond the ancient literal roots and practices of their doctrinal tracts (stoning, eye-for-an-eye as justice, etc.) yet can retain their core beliefs in our modern world, there exist a great many nominal Muslims who can also make such distinctions. For that reason I retain a degree of optimism that the vicious, backward and militant strains of Islamic thought will one day be superceded and made increasingly irrelevant as Muslim populations lean more toward secularism and rationalism. The difficult task we face today is in containing the harm and diminishing the influence of the dangerous elements so that we can reach that better future. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-06-02 03:40 |
| #11 a clear side effect of demonstrating the willingness to use extensive force against radical Islamists is that "moderate" Muslims will only openly oppose the radicals once it becomes ruinous NOT to do so. Unfortunately, we are so very far from making it ruinous for Muslims in general that there is little hope of any improvement. The West must overcome its squeamishness about collective punishment and begin to return Islam's favorite strategy in full measure. Only when Muslims feel our pain in equal or greater measure will they even begin to consider cleaning their own house. So far, we are trying to do this for them and making absolute fools of ourselves by doing so. Progress will come only when jihadis are being stacked up behind mosques like so much cordwood. In essence, the part of the population which could be our greatest ally will only crystallize if we make it clear that we who stand against Islamic insurgents/terrorists are the "strong horse". GP, while I understand the notion you are attempting to convey, you are severely mistaken if you think that Muslims of any sort will ever be our "ally" in any meaningful way. The West will always be Islam's eternal enemy. Democracy enshrines sovereignty in the people, something that Islam absolutely will not tolerate with its dedication to theocracy. Self-rule flies in the face of religious law and renders Islam permanently imiscible with modern civilization. Few Western leaders have as yet fully comprehended this concept and continue to deliver us into Islam's withering embrace. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-02 02:54 |
| #10 Would Siniora have shown this type of backbone vis-a-vis Fatah al-Islam if Israel had not responded with such forceful retaliation to Hezbollah's last provocation? I highly doubt it. As the Russians demonstrated with their take-no-prisoners response to Islamist militants in Chechnya, a clear side effect of demonstrating the willingness to use extensive force against radical Islamists is that "moderate" Muslims will only openly oppose the radicals once it becomes ruinous NOT to do so. In reality, a substantial sector of the populations of many nations in which radical Islamists coexist do not support them. But a tepid response against Islamic militancy will rarely expose these societal divisions. In essence, the part of the population which could be our greatest ally will only crystallize if we make it clear that we who stand against Islamic insurgents/terrorists are the "strong horse". |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-06-02 02:34 |
| #9 Skip any surrendering and cut straight to the dieing part. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-02 00:26 |
| #8 Suggestion to Siniora & the Lebanese army: Kill 'em all - let Baby Asshole and Ahma-dinha-nutjob sort 'em out. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-06-02 00:17 |
| #7 "Nice" and compassion seem to be taken as a sign of weakness of the West. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-02 18:45 |
| #6 The uncomfortable truth is that it will take another terrible atrocity to harden my heart enough to want to take the action that is necessary. I'd say, not so much "soft", Gladys, as less willing than others to abandon the traditional sense of humanity that is becoming necessary to correctly deal with Islam. Post 9-11 I took great pains to segregate Islamists from Muslims. Over the last five or more years, Muslims have taken no such pains. The time has come for them to experience the same degree, or greater, of suffering that they insist on inflicting upon us. Only first-hand knowledge of jihad's ultimate consequences will persuade them of the error of their ways. By withholding proper punishment from Islam's followers, we are literally killing them with kindness. Better to begin genuine retribution now such that they can begin to gain a sense of the danger that jihad has wrought upon their world. To delay our retaliation until they have, through laxity or hostility, enacted a final monstrous atrocity which brings them nuclear annihilation is actually less fair. Like Trifkovic says: The elite class has every intention of continuing to “fight” the war on terrorism without naming the enemy, without revealing his beliefs, without unmasking his intentions, without offending his accomplices, without expelling his fifth columnists, and without ever daring to win. This is a recipe for disaster. A catastrophe of such dimensions that everybody loses. Muslims, lacking advanced militaries, will suffer worst of all, but this in no way reduces the enormity of how avoidable all of this is, were we to apply comensurate force against Islam right now. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-02 18:36 |
| #5 Islam is a fake religion that is dangerous to Western life. Declare it a dangerous, subversive illegal organization in the US and other Western countries. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-06-02 18:15 |
| #4 Yes I believe you may be right Zenster. Civilization (and not having to struggle daily for my very existence) has made me soft. The uncomfortable truth is that it will take another terrible atrocity to harden my heart enough to want to take the action that is necessary. |
| Posted by: Gladys 2007-06-02 17:34 |
| #3 Muslims who side with us are, by the definition of their own evil scrolls, no longer Muslims. As for collective punishment: Either our elected representatives and our security services take responsibility for the job or it will come down to vigilantes. I believe it is likely to be the latter. The peacetards will continue to call al-Qaeda and the like "freedom fighters" and the vigilantes will be called "death squads". Sticks and stones. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-06-02 17:06 |
| #2 Zenster, Islam may be incapable of change but I have hope that many muslims are reasonable people. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence to date indicates otherwise. If "many Muslims were reasonable people", jihad would not be so wide-spread and counter-jihad would already be happening. It's not. Even if that means they are considered apostates by the hard-core islamists. Which they are quite obviously not willing to risk. By default, they allow the jihadists to rule the roost. Something that is entirely unacceptable for the West. If we can promote the idea (the reality really) that these islamists are just nasty, violent gangsters cloaking themselves with islam then the ordinary muslims can throw off the islamist mantle and, hopefully, get on with (ordinary) life. While I understand what you're trying to say, the simple fact remains that Islam itself is gangsterism personified. There are no Islamists hijacking any religion. This sort of murder, theft and mayhem is exactly what the Koran preaches and Muslims either tacitly or overtly support such filth. We have to first give them a chance and if that fails then we have no choice but to utterly defeat them. Islam has had the last half-decade to improve its image. Nothing of the sort has taken place. In fact, Islam's predations upon the West have only increased over time with little or no corresponding protest from the "moderate" Muslims you seek to defend. How much longer and how many more atrocities do you suggest we should endure before finally putting an end to this farce? Our way of life or theirs - by force if necessary. Like I was saying ... |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-06-02 16:41 |
| #1 Would Siniora have shown this type of backbone vis-a-vis Fatah al-Islam if Israel had not responded with such forceful retaliation to Hezbollah's last provocation? I highly doubt it. Surely you're joking. Or delusional. Don't mistake 'lack of backone' for prudence. Lebanon's army, thanks to the various factions in the country, is deliberately weak. Lebanon has perhaps one fifth of the forces Israel can call up. Of those, a significant majority can't be counted on to fight in certain situation (like, say, against Hesb'allah) It has equipment that is 40-plus years old. It hasn't been in significant combat, as a fighting force, in decades. No close air support (hence the heavy artillery barrages) Again, don't confuse backbone with prudence. Fatal al-Islam is a 'safe' target. Small. Stupid. Not openly backed by the Paleostinians, Hesb'allah, Syria, or Iran. Even with all that, the Lebanese army is not having an easy time of it. G*d save me from the armchair generals... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-06-02 12:48 |