Another Gas Attack in Syria: Truth or Consequences?

Well, it looks like it may be on. What may be "on" you ask? The ruling elites have been looking for a way to get us directly involved in Syria's civil war for years. President Obama tried several times to push America into a direct intervention with the objective of putting "boots on the ground" repeatedly. Instead, all that he could do was implement a plan which came out of the Pentagon and State Department to support ISIS ...err...I mean the "freedom fighters" in Syria. These same...uh..."freedom fighters" are the same folks we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades now.

Their objective has been to create a reactionary caliphate centered in Syria. These are the fine folks who've been launching terror attacks in not just the Middle East, but Europe and even the US. There are also the ones who love filming and posting beheadings, indiscriminate mass executions, hangings, and crucifixions. They also seem to enjoy selling women and children into sex slavery, gang raping them, and so forth. What a mighty fine good of group allies we have here. These individuals are a part of a larger group, comprising several all Muslim paramilitary groups collectively known as the "Free Syrian Army". To be sure, there is a small element of pro-Western individuals, but they are outnumbered and lack any real influence.

Since Syria has long been a key Russian ally in the region going back to the late 1940's, the US has long been interested in destabilizing Syria, which would affect Russia's influence in the Middle East (especially after Egypt left its orbit). However, that would still leave with one other key regional ally, Iran, and the US has had plans to topple its theocratic government since 1979. It also just so happens that Syria, and especially Iran, controls vast quantities of oil and gas. It also doesn't hurt that Syria has never accept Israel's right to exist, plus Iran has repeated threats to "blow Israel off the map" or "push Israel into the sea".

Iran has also trained, supplied, and underwritten terrorist organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, and Hezbollah. Oh, did I mention that our main oil supplier and military ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Iran happen to despise each other? Of course, there's no love lost regarding their opinion of Israel, which is not only a essential regional US and Western ally, but the only democracy in the Middle East who happens to also have a very powerful lobbying effort in Washington.

Yelp, Saudi Arabia and Iran have had a long simmering feud going on for nearly forever over religious differences. In recent years, these differences have become increasingly "hot" and boiled over into a few skirmishes. Given this, and the threat Iran poses to Israel, as well as to the stability of Lebanon and Egypt, it's no wonder that the US has wanted a more directed say in the region, especially after the first Gulf War and our liberation of Exxon and BP...oops, sorry...I mean Kuwait following Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of the oil rich country.

So, the British, French, and US naval forces stationed off the Lebanese coast have launched an overnight missile strike to take out a "military chemical" manufacturing facility and other supporting infrastructures. This follows an alleged chemical gas (chlorine) attack on a small community in Syria. However, early evidence showed that the attack, which was supposedly rocket launched, may have been staged. Also, preliminary chemical analysis also shows that the gas residue wasn't of Russian manufacture (Syria buys its chemical components from the Russians). Early evaluation showed that the chemical residue originated in the West...just like in the last two previous gas attacks. Huh.

Yelp, this wasn't the first time this has happened. There were two other occasions, and in each, there was the hue and cry from war hawks in Washington and even the weak-kneed Obama, to invade Syria. However, Russia immediately denied that the Assad government launched any chemical attacks, followed ( as one would expect) by Assad's vehement denial that he authorized any chemical attacks against the Syrian People. Interestingly though, was that in both occasions, "Free Syrian" groups, comprising mostly former/current ISIS fighters, were operating in the immediate vicinity, had withdrawn just prior to the attacks (they had been in a losing fight with government troops).

Nevertheless, the US and allies hit government military installations hard, including airbases. Unfortunately, in our overzealous need to respond, we inadvertently killed Russian military and civilian advisors and destroyed Russian equipment. Later, UN inspectors were able to confirm that, on both occasions, the chemical signature were not of Russian origin. In both incidents, its appeared that the chemical were of a Western manufacture. Now, there has been a third gas attack, and instead of waiting to confirm, the US and its French and British allies struck Syrian targets.

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has warned the US that any strike may result in serious consequences. Now, what he meant by that is open to interpretation. He could have meant that if any Russian personnel or equipment was destroyed, there would be a direct Russian reprisal. He could have meant a economic response, or perhaps a response with full Russian backing from the Syrian government's military. It is known that Russia support personnel, equipment, and ships were moved, so there may have been some back channel talks ahead of time. However, with the US backing groups to overthrow Russia's key regional ally, and the occasional direct air attacks, it's only a matter of time before Russia is forced to respond in-kind if, for no other reason, than to save face internationally and domestically.

What kind of response could this be? Well, it could be an indirect response such a putting pressure on allies in Europe, like cutting back or off the flow of gas and oil which is critical to certain nations like Germany, France, and the Balkans. This could, in turn, force them to put pressure on the US, UK, and France to knock it off. Obviously, it could try to affect the US in other economic ways such as attacks on our data grid---which could affects data networks everywhere, but especially in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

The Russians could step up its air defense system using strictly Russian personnel. Thus any attacks by the US or its allies would receive a direct response and any attempts to take out these installations could and would be viewed as a direct attack on Russia. That just has nasty repercussions written all over it. There's even the possibility of Russia flying regular interference to prevent future air attacks over Syria including instructions to engage any non-Syrian aircraft and/or missiles.

Now, I'm not going to get into any discussion about who's military can beat up the other guy's military. Frankly, I don't care, and the reason I don't care is because this is the kind of situation which can easily spiral out of control fast. Any escalation could and would likely end badly for everyone on the planet, not just in America or Russia, or even in Europe or Asia. I don't profess to be an expert, but I've studied history (especially military history) and political science my entire life. My education is in economics, and I've been fortunate enough to received several national awards in economics. I also served in the military in the area of intelligence gathering (albeit just as a peon). But, all the same, I smell a wet rat here folks.

We are backing the "Free Syrian Army", which consists of foreign fighters, almost exclusively Muslim, with a large component made up of active ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Taliban fighters. These are literally the same people we've been and are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people are dedicated to establishing an extremist Muslim caliphate in lieu of the current Syrian government. They have left their calling card all over the region in the form of thousands and thousands of graves and destroyed lives.

This war is about denying Russia one of its strategic regional allies. It's about securing another source of oil, but most importantly it's about setting the stage to destabilize and eventually overthrow the Iranian government (of course, access to its vast oil and gas reserves would certainly be a bonus). Iran is also an ally not just of Russia's, but also of China's. This would deny Russia and China of a key ally in the region. Can you see where this is going?
Yes, the Iranians overthrew the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom we installed fair and square after overthrowing their previous government in 1967. They then took over the American Embassy and held US personnel hostage for 444 days. They were released once Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, perhaps in retaliation of President Carter allowing the Shah to come to America for medical treatment (he had incurable cancer) and for attempting to launch an ill fated rescue operation. However, despite freezing banks accounts and the usually worthless economic sanctions, Iran went "unpunished".

Of course, we can't and must not forget that removing both Syria and Iran would bolster the prestige and influence of Saudi Arabia, who has never been on particularly good terms with Assad, and is mortal enemies with Iranians. Of course, Saudi Arabia was the home country of Osama bin Laden, and his family still remains there; very wealthy and influential. 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia (of the remaining four, two of them were from the United Arab Emirates and the third was from Lebanon and the fourth was Egyptian). Many of Al Qaeda's and ISIS's leadership has hailed from Saudi Arabia as well. Just saying.

So, who benefits by replacing the Assad government? Well, Israel first. Syria and Israel has had a pretty contentious relationship Israel's creation in 1948. Syria has been involved in every war against Israel, and for years, operated as a safe haven for terrorist groups such as the PLO and Black September. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war, which Israel has kept as a buffer. With the Assad government gone, Israel loses an strong enemy and would likely keep the heights.

Second, the US wins. First, it removes a strategic ally from Russia's arsenal. It gains access to Syrian gas and oil reserves, plus it gains territory which borders on Iran. That gives the US a near circular containment of Iran, with direct or indirect control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a useful ally in Saudi Arabia. It allows to the US and Saudi Arabia to put more pressure on Iran to moderate its support of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Of course, the US influence in the region grows tremendously. Now, we can't forget the Oligarchy back home which just loves the perpetual and highly profitable "War on Terror", which keeps our pseudo-wartime economy chugging along and provides an outlet for our "excess" population of high school and college graduates in need of a job (combined with an influx of illegal immigrates, drives down the availability of jobs and wages). Countries like the UK and France also benefit for pretty much the same reasons except they are dealing with more or less "legal" migrates.

Who loses? Well, interestingly enough, Israel does. While it wins on one hand, an extremist Muslim caliphate in the region, especially so close to Israel, would likely result in either a protracted war aimed at bleeding Israel dry and disrupting its economy, or (if Iran is to believed), a short nuclear and/or biological war. Certainly elements of the "Free Syrian" coalition have shown a proficiency and willingness to use biological weapons, at least on unarmed civilians. I can't see Israel ever accepting this. Plus, any attack from the caliphate, would include aggressive support from Iran and its surrogates, Hamas and Hezbollah (I wouldn't be surprised to see Muslim mercenaries from the entire Arab world join in too).

Another loser would be the US for pretty similar reasons. I think the planners of such things believe they could convince the caliphate to "work with them" with the usual economic bribery, and in case that doesn't happen, overthrow them. Personally, I think that would be like chasing cockroaches like we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years. I think we would also find ourselves serving as a magnet for every religious fanatic out there, and those choosing not to come to Syria, would get busy in Europe and elsewhere. However, our ruling Oligarchy would still benefit since war is a very profitable business.

Russia, and perhaps China, would naturally lose. Syria has been a strategic ally since around 1948/49. It's also been a important economic partner with Russia, as well as China. Russia would lose military bases as well, and (in the grand scheme of things), there would be a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region, which also just happens to be close to Russian territory. From the Russian perspective, the US and/or its allies, could take over or build bases in Syrian territory which would like Russia having bases in southern Mexico.

Lastly, are the "incidentals" (and I really hate having to use that term). By that I mean the ordinary civilians; people who are just trying to stay the hell out of the way of geopolitics. The lives of these people has been nearly destroyed by years of brutal war. Cities, towns, villages, and entire communities simply eradicated. Hospitals and schools leveled, not to mention the loss of fresh water, food sources, electricity, sanitation, and even basic shelter in many cases. of course, there is always the indiscriminate snipers and unexploded ordinances to consider. It's no place for any living creature, let alone children.

We mustn't forget the Assyrian/Chaldean Christians, who've been in the region since the 1st century, who are now gone; in many cases forever. They have been among the thousands butchered. There's the Yazidis and Kurds who've been forced from their communities and murdered by the thousands. Then there's been hundreds, if not thousands, of young girls, and even boys, who've been sold in to a world of brutal sex slavery. Again, it's the children who pay perhaps the worse price of war. These are who I see as the biggest losers of this or any war; the ones with no vested interest in the war. They don't benefit. They don't profit. They gain nothing but loss, grief, and for many, hatred.

I have no doubt this most recent chemical gas attack was staged like the previous two. We are being lured or maneuvered into a conflict we have no business being in. When you get down to it, this isn't about ideology, religion, or even "humanitarian" reasons. This is about geopolitics. It's about power, influence, money, and ultimately, control. It's about igniting a new cold war, even if it has to get briefly hot. However, that could spark a nuclear powder keg just as easily. The enemy isn't the Syrians or even the Russians. It's the Oligarchs who are behind it all. As long as we remain divided and fighting each other, we are powerless. But if united, we can focus our strength on those seeking to do us so much harm and put a stop to it.

A Prelude to War?

On April 6th, the US fired 59 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles at a cost of some $1.5 million dollars each at the Syrian Al Shayrat air force base located in Homs. The US and Western corporate media claimed there was extensive damage to the base, with between 23 and 26 top line fighters destroyed as well as damage to the runways, maintenance and storage outbuildings and hangers. The Syrian and Russian media outlets, however, reported that the damage was minimal, with only six planes destroyed and four suffering minor damage. A few of the reinforced dual hangers suffered some damage but remained functional. They confirmed that several of the outlining maintenance and storage buildings hit, resulting in significant damage, however none of fuel or weapons storage facilities were affected while the runways were undamaged. As proof, Russian and Syrian media showed footage of the base. In addition they reported that six individuals were killed and about a dozen were injured in the attack. As if to reemphasis the point, the following day, Syrian jets took off from the base's air strip. The Al Shayrat base is home to the Syrian 50th Air Brigade which is comprised of the 675th, 677th, and the 685th fighter squadrons (the 675th is made up of the MIG-23 "Flogger" while the other two are comprised of Sukhoi SU-22Fs). Russia's 120th Artillery Brigade is stationed there along with approximately ten "Hind" attack helicopters.

What prompted the US attack is a matter of some conjecture. Approximately two days earlier, fighter jets from the Al Shayrat base took off with instructions to knock out a rebel stronghold in the rebel controlled city of Khan Sheikhun, in the Idlib Provence, which allegedly contained a warehouse of various weapons, rockets, ammunition, and artillery shells. The Syrian jets successfully hit their objective and removed it as threat to Syrian government forces and the surrounding pro-Assad population. Shortly afterwards, came the first reports of a nerve gas cloud. Now, this is where things get a little murky, but first, let's explain who these rebels are. As everyone knows or should know by now, the US and a handful of Western nations have been battling Islamic extremist aka "the terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan . These terrorists are known variously as ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, and so forth. In Syria, they are known as the Al Nusra Front. These are the same groups which were involved with the attacks on 9/11, and numerous other attacks in France, England, Germany, Russia, and most recently in Sweden.

However, Al Nusra opposes President Assad of Syria. Their goal, as always, is to create a Islamic Caliphate of the extremist variety. Syria, which has been generally pro-Western and secular since the end of World War I, has been a long time regional ally of Russia, and recently, chummy with China (Russia and China are also on friendly terms with Iran, while Iran funds and arms their proxy terrorist organizations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza). Since the US would like to isolate Russia in the Middle East, we have tried to destabilize the Assad Government whenever and wherever possible. The current civil war, has proven to be an excellent opportunity. However, in order to do so, we have had to ally ourselves with the rebel opposing Assad; and yes, they are the very same people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and has been attacking the West is now our buddies in Syria. Amazingly stupid if you ask me.

Shortly after the recent attack, there was reports of what appeared to be a sarin gas cloud. News footage seemed to confirm that there had indeed been a release of the highly toxic never agent. Horrific scenes of dead and dying women, men, and children, along with brave attempts to save those still alive was broadcasted around the world. Condemnation from throughout the world was loud and swift. The only problem, however, was who did it? The US was the first nation to point the finger at Assad's government. It claimed that their intelligence reports "confirm" that the Syrian jets had dropped the sarin gas in a blatant disregard of international law or even basic respect for humanity. Based on the claims of the US Government, other nations joined in their condemnation of Assad.

However, there was a problem with this claim by the Trump Administration. Both Russia and the Syrian governments maintained that the Syrian military does not have any chemical weapons. They claim that the rebel warehouse must have stored the toxic agent and was released by the bombing, which is why there was such a limited exposure. Several years ago there was a similar incident in Syria where there was a sarin gas attack on a small pro-government neighborhood. President Obama, again acting on US military intelligence reports, quickly blamed the Assad Government and began demanding that the US military intervene in Syria's Civil War for "humanitarian" purposes. Both Putin and Assad insisted that the attack, which was made from nearby artillery fire, was the work of the rebels who were assaulting pro-government forces (and losing). Both Assad and Putin also stated that Syrian doesn't have sarin gas. Finally, in a last ditch effort to prevent a US military invasion of its ally, Russia produced satellite imagery and other intelligence reports confirming the Syrian military didn't fire on their own troops and pro-government neighborhood.

So here we go again. Same scenario. Different president. Meanwhile, Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving into the region. The speed at which Russia is able to move ships into region is another reason for Russia's long standing presence in the Crimea, which is home for the Black Sea Fleet. Additionally, Russia, which has about 9000 military personnel in Syria, is reinforcing its air defense networks in and around its bases while the US is positioning a carrier task force to bolster their resolve. The British and French navies also maintain a strong presence in the Mediterranean , along with other NATO nation countries, including Italy, Greece, and Turkey (which, ironically, had just concluded war games in the Black Sea with the same Russian ships who are now steaming toward the Levant).

President Assad is winning the Civil War, despite US support for the rebels. He has publicly stated that Syria will need to the support of other nations to help rebuild their infrastructure and the economy. President Putin has maintained from the beginning that his goal is to protect his friend and ally, plus remove the terrorist threat not just from the region, but from Russia as well. Russia has the longest unbroken border of any country with majority Muslim countries; many of whom had been former Soviet Republics back in the days of the USSR. However, Russia has faced a growing threat from radical Muslim terrorists since the 1980's, including violent attacks in Moscow and more recently, St. Petersburg, not to mention their war with Chechnyan guerillas in the Republic of Georgia.

As for the rebels, they have repeatedly shown in the alter identity as "terrorists" to have a complete disregard for human life. They have massacred thousands of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, non-Muslims, gays, not to mention ordinary civilians. They have raped countless women and children and sold untold numbers into sex slavery. Their atrocities have prompted one of the largest mass exoduses in world history; most of which has descended on Europe with trickles coming to the US. Unfortunately, with this mass migration has come terrorist cells intent on spreading their hate and bloodshed. So, why would the US align themselves with the likes of these monsters? The only explanation I can come up with is the same of ole one---control. Control over the oil and gas fields. Control over shipping routes. Strategic control over territory to further helm in Russia. Plus, it could provide a staging area for an invasion, either directly or indirectly, against Iran. It would also separate Iran from Hezbollah and Hamas, which could relieve pressure on Israel and even Egypt and Lebanon. It would also secure Israel's northern border with Syria and end the standoff over the Golan Heights, which was seized in the Six Day War of 1967. In addition, it would prove to be an excellent investment for US and Western business. After all, "someone" has to help with the rebuilding and provide the investment capital right? Why not our friendly neo-fascist Oligarchy?

I think there's a lot of potential for missteps in this game of geo-politics; missteps that the world cannot afford. We need to put aside our outdated Cold War mentality and forget about trying to fight the last war. The world has changed. Old ideas of political ideology belong to the history books. Nowadays, we face a common foe who couldn't care less about Communism or Capitalism. This enemy fights for its religion. Nothing and no one else matters. It sees no different between Moscow, Berlin, Beijing, Paris, Mexico City, Ottawa, London, or Washington DC. The US cannot win this war alone. It needs committed allies. Russia appears to be willing to be that ally, but will the Oligarchy who rules this country let it? Will it allow us?


The Latest: US Calls for Transparency in UN Syrian Summit


Sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack, Turkey's Health Ministry says


U.S. Missile Attack on Syria: What We Know and Don't Know


Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad

The Refugee Crisis

1.5 million. That's the number of Middle Eastern "refugees" Germany is expected to take in this year. 800,000. That's the number of "refugees" Germany had agreed to accept in 2015. In an official internal memo, German authorities expect between 7,000 and 10,000 illegal crossings per day just between October and December. Turkish authorities have detained approximately 50,000 additional "refugees" who were trying to make their way to Germany at a cost of $7.5 billion thus far while the European Union, the United Nations and other international aid groups have promised Turkey just $412 million to offset their cost. Turkey has, thus far, absorbed just over one million migrants compared to Lebanon's 1.4 million and Jordon's 1.1 million, and Obama has increased the number of Syrian "refugees" he wants to bring in from 2000 to 10,000 for the fiscal year which started in October; this, despite recent events in France and Germany.

Meanwhile, in Austria, an average of 13,000 of these individuals enter the small nation every day. The situation has become so bad, that Austria has had to impose sealed border for the first time since the end of World War II. The situation isn't any better in the Czech Republic, Bosnia, Serbia, Greece, or any of the other Eastern European and Balkan countries. England, already saturated with Moslem refugees from Northern Africa (mostly Somalia and Etruria), has agreed to accept an additional 20,000 more over the next five years. France, which already has a large Moslem population, mainly from North Africa as well, says it's willing to take approximately 24,000 more and has indicated it may accept further migrants. Italy has seen an influx of around 110,000.

In Scandinavia, Sweden has accepted 75,000 compared to Norway, Finland, and Iceland, who've accepted 15,000 each (recently Iceland, which has a population of roughly 300,000, has said it could accept a further 10,000). Denmark, like Finland and Norway where the majority of citizens oppose accepting any more immigrants, has taken in only a nominal number of refugees. Along with the influx of these refugees, has been a dramatic increase in often violent protests, especially in Germany, over "insufficient" or "free" housing (furnished of course), color TVs (seriously. In fact, there has been several reports of hunger strikes because they were provided with black and white TVs instead of color TVs or weren't provided with a cable or satellite connection), immediate access to guaranteed jobs, as well as demands for "free" medical care, clothing, food, as well as a stipend for living expenses.

In addition, there has been demands in Bavaria to end Oktoberfest as well as serving of beer or pork products (and we all know how Germans love their beer and sausage). Just recently, German school girls have been asked not to wear skirts or shorts in order not to "offend" Moslem students. Further, German high school students have asked to "volunteer" to clean Moslem refugee camps and apartments, as well as do their laundry and other domestic chores. Failure to "volunteer" may result in a mandatory one year service in the German military.

But what has proven worse of all has been the number of gang assaults, rapes and murders of women throughout Europe, but predominantly in Northern Germany, Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia. Current statistics show that since in influx of Moslem "refugees", one in four Swedish women will likely be raped. In the capital of Stockholm, there was an average of five reported rapes during this past summer (77% of all rapes are committed by Moslems males). This marks a 500% increase while half of all rapes committed in Denmark were by Moslem males, mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan. In Norway, 100% of all "aggravated rapes" were by committed by mainly Somali Moslem males. But Moslem males aren't apparently the only ones guilty of violent attacks. There has also been an increase in physical assaults by "gangs" of Moslem women on other women whom they view as not being adequately dressed (one was on a French female sunbathing with two friends) or behaving in a "immoral" manner.

Records indicate that the majority of the refugees are from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Eretria, Somalia, Libya, and a smattering of other countries throughout the Middle East and parts of Africa. In terms of their religion, approximately 96% are Moslem, and yet the most persecuted groups, namely the Syrian Christians, Yazidis (a Christian-Kurdish community), and Kurds, have been limited to just around 3%. In 2003, there were approximately 1.2 million Christians living the area around Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq for the last two millennia--the oldest continual Christian presence in the world. Today, that number is no higher than 250,000 (and only about 150 families in Syria). Of the thousands of Yazidi families seeking refuge, only ten families have been granted asylum. The question is why?

Republican Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz recently purposed admitting refugees based on their level of imminent danger.

If this policy was in already in place, the majority of the refugees would be the Syrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds; the majority of whom have been murdered in the thousands by ISIS and other Moslem terrorist groups. How many of you remember hearing about the 40,000 plus Yazidis---men, women, and children---being forced to outrun advancing ISIS troops who closed on their home in Sinjar in August 2014? It was only through heavy aerial bombardment by the US and other coalition forces that allowed them to escape into the nearby Sinjar Mountains, along with some fleeing Christians. Meanwhile, the Kurds were pressured by ISIS from one side yet the Turkish troops refused to allow them to cross into Turkey on the other side (in fact, the Turks actually fired on fleeing Kurds trying to make it to safety on the Iraqi/Turkish border), placing them between a deadly pincher. Ultimately, after bitter fighting, the Kurds were able to turn back the attacking ISIS forces.

Since the outset of the war in the region, thousands of Syrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds have been murdered---most often beheaded or crucified---while thousands of others, mostly women and children, have been repeatedly gang raped, beaten and sold into slavery (5000 to 7000 women and children in October of 2014 alone according to some reports). A lucky few are periodically ransomed off. With the international community doing what it can, albeit slowly, most of these Syrian Christians and Yazidis are left to the mercy of Sunni Moslems for protection. However, that's not a guarantee of safety with some Sunni Moslems who are also often the victims of ISIS, have cooperated with these terrorists by betraying Syrians Christians and Yazidis.

Who are these Syrian Christians? Syrian Christianity is part of the East Orthodox Church (also known as The Church of the East), which was established very early in the 1st century and slowly, between the 1st and 3rd century, began to replace the ancient Zoroastrianism and pagan religions in what is now Lebanon and Syria, thus making the Christian communities in these areas among the very first. As the faith grew, more adherents ventured to the East, into modern Iran and Iraq. This became the Assyrian Christian Church, so named after the ancient kingdom of Assyria while others, including Thomas the Apostle, preached in India. A few even eventually made their way into parts of China. This became the Chaldean Christian Church. Meanwhile, some of these new believers went westward, into Egypt to establish the Coptic Church.

The Yazidis are an ancient people related to the Kurds who occupy northern Iraq, and parts of northwestern Iran and eastern Turkey. Some argue that it is the Kurds who descend from the older Yazidis; separated by geography and resulting changes in cultures and religion (the Kurds are mostly Moslem). The Yazidi are a religious minority with a belief in a monotheism which incorporates elements of Zoroastrianism and ancient Mesopotamian religions. Because they have continually refused to convert to Islam, they have been severely persecuted by both Sunni and Shiite Moslems for centuries. There has been a loose cooperation between these groups in aiding one another in order to avoid the wrath of Moslem zealots seeking to "purify" the region.

So, the question we need to answer is why isn't Europe, or at least the United States, not doing more to remove these Syrian Christians, Yazidis, and Kurds from harm's way? We know they are prime targets of ISIS, Al-Qaida, and al-Shabaab. Why is our focus on Moslem refugees? As recent events have proven, the risk of these Moslem "refugees" being associated with terrorist cells are pretty good while the risk for these persecuted peoples is minimal at best. It would make much more sense to save these people who at least have a religious, and therefore a moralistic connection to the people of Europe and America from what is obvious genocide if they remain. We must do all that we can to bring pressure on Washington to refocus their attention while there's still time.


Europe's refugee crisis, explained
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/5/9265501/refugee-crisis-europe-syria


Ted Cruz's Test for Syrian Refugees
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/ted-cruzs-religious-test-for-syrian-refugees


Obama Refuses To Allow Fleeing Yazidi and Assyrian Christians to Enter United States
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/obama-refuses-to-allow-yazidi-christians-fleeing-isis-to-enter-united-states/


'Hundreds' of Yazidi Women Killing Themselves in ISIS Captivity
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeast/yazidi-women-suicide-in-isis-captivity/


1 in 4 Swedish Women Will Be Raped As Sexual Assaults Increase 500%
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/175434/1-4-swedish-women-will-be-raped-sexual-assaults-daniel-greenfield


Feminists Mute On Muslim Rape Epidemic Sweeping Europe
http://www.infowars.com/feminists-mute-on-muslim-rape-epidemic-sweeping-europe/

Under the Wire: Marie Colvin's Last Assignment, A Book Review

War. It terrifies us. It freezes our very souls. Yet, through our better angels, it can call us to bear witness to its inhumanity and speak out against the carnage while giving voice to those silenced by the vacuum of destruction and death through words and images. War correspondent Marie Colvin was one of those better angels for whom hundreds could tell their stories, and it was through the masterfully told book "Under The Wire: Marie Colvin's Last Assignment", that her fellow war journalist and close friend, Paul Conroy, bears witness for her, lost friends, and comrades born of war. In a gripping and all too real adventure, Conroy takes us from the relative tranquility of a Beirut bar into the coldly calculating meat grinder of Assad's ongoing war; a war which knows no distinction between rebel or child or, ultimately, journalists.

Paul Conroy is a freelance photographer, who often works for the British newspaper, The Sunday Times. It is his job to convey to the world the frozen images in the mists of survival against an onslaught of unimaginable ferocity. In doing so, Conroy shows the world both the savagery of war and the human will to persevere. Marie Colvin was an award winning correspondent for The Sunday Times and author who covered the killing fields of Chechnya, Timor, Libya, and Sri Lanka, where she lost an eye and gained an eye patch and solidified her near mythical no holds barred reputation as a world class journalist. Theirs is a select few who routinely risked their lives in some of the world's most dangerous places to expose what governments, dictators, and tribal leaders deny, cover up---the massacres; the genocides; and the wholesale slaughter thousands of innocent victims.

Conroy's book, "Under the Wire: Marie Colvin's Last Assignment", calls out for our condemnation of war's inhumanity, while sharing with the reader the dedication of those who risk everything to bring the truth behind the offical statements and press releases. We owe it to ourselves to read this book; to learn the reality behind those 10 second sound bites and flickering images on our nightly news. But be warned. Once you start down this journey with Mr. Conroy, you won't be able to stop; you won't want to stop. Each page will drive you forward to the next. You'll be sweep away by the images created through this brilliant telling of Marie's and Paul's descend into a hell known as Baba Amr.

This is one of those rare books that you will want to share with your friends. But by the end, Paul Conroy's "Under the Wire" will have changed you. You'll understand consequences of modern warfare for what it really is. It will make you want to delve deeper into what you see and hear in the media and learn what's really happening in the world. So come along with Paul Conroy and become a witness to the greatest tragedy the world has seen in generations.


Weinstein Books

www.weinsteinbooks. com

319 pgs.

Resolving the Syrian Crisis

President Obama and his lapdog, Secretary of State, John Kerry, just got "played". An arrogant Obama pranced around the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg Russia liked he owned the place and the world needed to call on him; even showing up late for a dinner and apparently expecting everyone to wait on him. It didn't happen. Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly showed Obama that Russia was his, and Obama was just one guest to the world economic gathering among many. Obama had intended to convince world leaders to come around to his point of view over the Syrian situation. Instead, everyone stayed pretty much focused on the global economic crisis. Imagine that. Meanwhile, those leaders who did venture a remark here and there made it clear they didn't support Obama's "missile diplomacy".

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Russia was busy at work trying to ease the situation while Obama kept pleading his case through Kerry to the various liberal "talking heads" political talk shows, Congress, and anybody else he could collar. But nobody was buying the rotting fish. Poll after poll showed that the American People weren't interested in getting involved in a Syrian civil war where there was little concrete evidence of who fire the missiles armed with the sarin gas, although there was a preponderance of evidence that it was the Al Qaeda backed rebels who were the guilty party. It seemed everyone knew that an American assault on Syrian government forces, however "narrow" as Obama put it, would lead to wider involvement of US troops sooner or later. In addition, given the fragile nature of the conflict, an American strike could easily tilt the military stalemate in favor of the rebels. This could potentially lead to yet another extremist Islamic government in the Middle East, and irony of ironies, made America an accidental ally of Al Qaeda on the anniversary of the cowardly 9/11 attack!

So, how was the mistake averted? Enter Vladimir Putin again. As some of you may know, Russia is both a military and economic ally of Syria. Over the years, especially during the Cold War, Russia kept Syria well armed, which apparently included supplies of chemical weapons such as mustard and saran gas. So much so, that Syria became one the world's biggest possessors of the lethal substances. As a result of their relationship---and not to threats from Obama---President Assad agreed to put their chemical weapons stock under international control with Russia acting as the facilitator.

Despite the public announcement, Obama went on TV Tuesday night, September 10th, to announce that America was essentially "approving" the deal (although they weren't included and weren't asked), and added that America would continue to monitor the situation to see that both Syria and Russia comply. Quoting President Reagan, Secretary of State Kerry said we would "trust but verify with emphasis on verify". Obama went on to cite "American Exceptionalism" and God as our prerogative to monitor and, apparently, to act as the world's policeman. Putin was quick to respond that "God created all men equally" and pretty much let Obama know that the days of any sole moral authority American leaders believed they had were over. Implied in his statement, Putin seemed to indicate that any US military action may result in an equal responsive military action. Obama checkmated.

The international community is now, more than ever, about shared leadership, responsibility, and cooperation, not bully pulpit diplomacy. One wonders if the Cuban Missile Crisis which took place under President Kennedy's watch was to happen again, who would blink this time? Come to think about it, perhaps it just has.