FrontPage Magazine

• Danish

Based on a widely circulated video and statements from the Vatican, it was believed that Fr. Francois Murad, a Catholic Syrian priest, was recently beheaded in Syria. It was not long before others “vigorously denied” the story, saying that the Christian priest was actually shot dead. And now that’s fast become the “big” news. For example, according to the Telegraph, “The footage, said to show Father Francois Murad, 49, as the victim in a brutal summary execution by foreign jihadists is likely to be an older video that bares no relation to the death of the Catholic priest. Father Murad ‘died when he was shot inside his church’ in the northern Syrian Christian village of Ghassaniyeh on June 23, three separate local sources, who did not wish to be named, told the Telegraph.”

So apparently that makes it better? That seems to be the Telegraph’s take, for it continues: “Claims that Father Murad was one of two men to be decapitated by a foreign jihadist group went viral, with outrage expressed in blogs and articles worldwide.”

So now that he wasn’t beheaded, only shot dead inside his church, there’s no longer any call for “outrage”?

At any rate, welcome to the “distraction” tactic being exploited by the many elements trying to minimize the atrocities being committed by the jihadis—also known as the “Free Syrian Army” (FSA)—in Syria. Supporters of these jihadis exploit the fact that, in a time of war, as currently in Syria, news is not always reliable. They also claim that any news that portrays the Syrian government as the “good guys”—such as nonstop videos of the FSA committing atrocities—is just pro-Assad propaganda, that cannot be trusted (they never seem to see the flipside to this logic, that Western media can be disseminating false anti-Assad propaganda).

Thus, let’s not focus too much on the exact particulars—for indeed, exact information is not always clear—and rather acknowledge the big picture: namely that beheadings have become very common in Syria, even if we don’t always know the identities of those beheaded. But we do know who are doing the beheadings: al-Qaeda linked jihadis who are trying to transform Syria into a Sharia-ruling emirate.

Consider the video which some are now saying was not Fr. Murad—who was only shot (whew!) Whoever the men being beheaded are, what you are witnessing is the true face of the Syria “rebellion”—jihadis, most of them obviously foreigners. The ring leader appears perhaps Chechnyan, and can hardly speak proper Arabic (but one of the few phrases that he utters that is understandable is “we are enforcing the rules of Allah”). The bound men are then beheaded to wild cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

To appreciate the frequency of such beheadings, do a quick YouTube search with words like “Syria” and “beheadings,” and you will see any number of graphic videos of Syrians being beheaded by U.S.-backed jihadis. These are the videos that have still not been identified and removed by YouTube, but which likely soon will. Before them, there were many others that are now gone.

Among some of the ones currently up, are:

• A video of reportedly a Syrian policeman, having his head sliced off, to screams of Allahu Akbar; his head is then picked up and chucked to the ground.
• A video of reportedly a Muslim apostate to Christianity, either in Tunisia or Syria, also having his head sheared off to screams of Allahu Akbar.
• A video of a child, prodded by the Free Syrian Army, cutting the heads off of Syrian men for apparently being loyal to the Assad government.
• A video of the FSA making another child hack a man’s head off—again, to cries of Allahu Akbar.
• A video of the FSA tormenting and humiliating an obviously mentally-handicapped man, torturing another man, and at the very end beheading a third man—to cries of Allahu Akbar.

While strictly not a beheading video, let’s also not forget the video of an FSA fighter cutting out and biting into the heart of a dead soldier—the same video Russian president Putin rightly shamed the pr0-FSA West with. Before biting into the organs of his foe, the cannibalistic jihadi declares, “I swear to Allah, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs—we will eat your heart and livers! Allahu Akbar!”

So what’s to be learned by all this savage carnage, beheadings, cannibalism and what not? Those who wish to distract will insist that we cannot be sure of all the facts and circumstances—the identity of the executioners, the identity of the victims, the exact context, etc. They will nitpick and lose sight of the big picture. Hence the debate on whether Fr. Murad was beheaded or shot (incidentally, here’s a video of a man executed by jihadis in Syria by gunfire—again, to screams of “Allahu Akbar”; it’s not a whole lot better than the beheadings).

Even so, there is one thing we can be absolutely sure about—and it’s perhaps the most significant and existentialist point of these barbaric beheadings: they are all done in the name of the god of Islam; they are all accompanied by cries of distinctly Islamic slogans, most prominently, Allahu Akbar.

This speaks volumes, or at least it should. Even Muslims raping Coptic Christian girls, as in this video, shout this most distinctive of Islamic cries, first uttered by Islam’s prophet himself when attacking non-Muslims.

To understand the significance of all this, consider if Christian groups around the world started beheading people while screaming things like “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” What would that say about Christianity?

What does it say about Islam?

Hence the true lesson of Syria’s beheading videos.

Gatestone Institute

Why do millions of Egyptians, including politicians and activists, consider Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “stooge”—as she is so commonly referred to by many in Egypt, from the media down to the street?

In America, some are aware of matters, such as that “Patterson in particular resisted opportunities to criticize the Morsi government as it implemented increasingly authoritarian policies. In a memorable May interview with the Egyptian English-language news sit[e] Ahram Online, she repeatedly dodged pointed questions about Morsi’s leadership. ‘The fact is they ran in a legitimate election and won,’ she said…. Republicans from Texas Senator Ted Cruz to House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce have pounced on statements like these, increasingly seeing Patterson as the key implementer for a policy that at least offers tacit support to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Following the Egyptian media, however, one discovers that the reasons Egyptians dislike Patterson are many and unambiguous.

Last week, for example, El Fagr reported that, during their most recent phone conversation, Patterson demanded that Egypt’s recently appointed Supreme Commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces, General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, release all Muslim Brotherhood members currently being held for questioning: “And when Sisi rejected this order, the American ambassador began threatening him that Egypt will turn into another Syria and live through a civil war, to which Sisi responded violently: ‘Neither you nor your country can overcome Egypt and its people.’”

Earlier, Patterson was reported as “trying to communicate with General Sisi, demanding dialogue with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and concessions to them,” to which Sisi reportedly retorted: “Stop meddling in our affairs… the Egyptian people are capable of looking after their own welfare.”

These are just the latest samplings from Egypt concerning the ambassador’s attempts to reinstate the Brotherhood to power. The day before the fundamentalist Salafi “Nour” party withdrew from negotiations with Egypt’s interim government, Al Nahar reported that Patterson had “incited them [the Salafi Nour Party] to tamper with the political scene and the road map and to threaten to withdraw from political participation if Dr. Muhammad Baradei becomes elected as Prime Minister…”

There is also widespread belief that Patterson’s “meddling” in Egypt’s affairs is not limited to General Sisi and the Egyptian media. Several of Egypt’s revolutionary forces, including Tamarod, which played a pivotal role in the June 2013 revolution, are preparing to stage a protest in front of the U.S. embassy in Cairo “calling for the ejection of ambassador Anne Patterson.”

Even Muhammad Heikal—“the Arab world’s most respected political commentator” and for over 50 years an Egyptian political insider—said during a live interview that Patterson had assured the Muslim Brotherhood’s Hisham Qandil, who under Morsi was Egypt’s Prime Minister, that “there are many forms of pressure, and America holds the keys to the Gulf.”

Such blatantly pro-Muslim Brotherhood actions are what have led most Egyptians, including politicians and activists, to see Patterson as the Brotherhood’s lackey. In fact, one Egyptian politician, Mustafa Bakari, concluded that “in my opinion, she [Patterson] is a member of the sleeper cells of the Brotherhood, likely recruited by Essam al-Erian or Muhammad al-Baltagi.”

Then of course, it is widely known that in the days leading to the June 30 Revolution, Patterson called on Egyptians not to protest—including by meeting with the Coptic Pope and asking him specifically to urge the nation’s Christian minority not to oppose the Brotherhood, even though Christians were naturally the most to suffer under Morsi, especially in the context of accusations of “blasphemy,” and are the most to suffer now, in retaliation to the Brotherhood’s toppling.

These reasons and more demonstrate why Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, is a disliked figure in Egypt. More importantly, they also demonstrate the unambiguous pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of the current U.S. administration.