The Expanding War in Gaza: Prelude to Armageddon or An Opportunity?

There's something happening which doesn't bode well for NATO, Europe, the U.S. or the Middle East and that "something" is Turkey. Turkey, which has NATO's second largest army, may represent the chink in NATO's defensive shield. Not only is Turkey one of the strongest of the mutual defensive organization, it also happens to be the only one which has a majority Sunni Muslim population.

While there are other nations in Europe which have a Muslim history, such as the former Yugoslav countries of Kosovo, Serbia or Bosnia and Herzegovina, none can match the sheer size of Turkey . NATO depends on Turkey not just for its military, but also for its strategic importance at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and proximity to Russia's underbelly...and Ukraine.

It's location offers a perfect tactical point to monitor all Russian ship movement---military and civilian---in and out of the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait.  It provides prime real estate for listening stations and an excellent staging point for missiles aimed at key Russian military sites such as the vital Sevastopol naval base, as well as the oil and gas fields in the Crimea.  Obviously, Moscow is easily within reach of land based missiles, not to mention "boomer" ICBM submarines lurking in the Black Sea and nearby Mediterranean.

As an aside, Turkey's strategic position was put to the test back in 1962 when the United States secretly placed not just listening stations in Turkey, but also nuclear "Jupiter" missiles batteries capable of hitting Moscow within minutes, not to mention sites within the Warsaw Pact, which included the countries of Ukraine, Hungary and Romania.

 The Soviet Union, led by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, responded in-kind by putting listening stations and their own "R-12" intermediate range thermonuclear missiles in Cuba, resulting in a standoff known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis", which brought the world as close to total nuclear annihilation as it has ever come (and hopefully ever will).  

President John Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev were able to work out a deal whereby Soviet missiles would be withdrawn from Cuba provided U.S. missiles were removed from Turkey (which the U.S. quietly did several weeks later so as not to alarm the America public or look as if we were backing down to our allies), which brings us back to Turkey again.

During the 1960's and since, Turkey has provided the manpower to fuel the burgeoning economic success of post-WWII Europe, especially Germany which had become Europe's economic engine. The result was a massive influx of mostly Muslim Turks into Germany and elsewhere in Europe (about three million ethnic Turks now live in Germany along with roughly 3 million throughout the rest of Europe).

However, all isn't well between Turkey and its European/NATO allies. The rise of a radicalized Islam in neighboring countries has resulted in pressure on the traditionally secular Turkish Government, currently led by President Recep Tayyap Erdogan and his conservative/right wing "Justice and Development Party" to become more assertively Islamic. It should be pointed out that Turkey's Constitution specifically prohibits political parties which promote Islam or Sharia law.

The party, which utilizes the initials "AK" or "AKP", considers itself to be pro-liberal economically and  conservative democrat domestically, following the ideals originally set forth of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, in what's termed as "Kemalist Reforms".  However, others have described Turkey as being democratically Islamist, which has been strongly denied by President Erdogan. 

Some claim that Turkey is following a "neo-Ottomanist" foreign policy designed to make itself the dominant power in the Near East (which would obviously puts it at odds with Saudi Arabia and Iran).  Indeed, a growing number of groups within Turkey are wanting to see the country slide further to the right and become more openly Islamic, if not like theocratic Iran, than at least like a democratic version of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

This leaves Turkey's government essentially walking a tightrope, which occasionally has spilled over in Turkey's relationship with Europe and the U.S. led NATO's support of Israel versus Turkey's obligation to side with the Palestinians and Hamas, which Erdogan does not consider to be terrorists.  The last thing President Erdogan wants is to face a situation like that of President Assad and Syria.

Turkey has promoted the "open border" policy of Europe, which has become extremely unpopular among Europeans due to the rise in crime and attacks on non-Muslim women for not being "modestly dressed" and demands for more conformity with Sharia law. Some have even called for an end to Oktoberfest due to the Muslim prohibition on alcohol! The number of legal and illegal influx of so-called "migrants" has resulted in approximately 22.8 million migrants coming to Europe with more arriving almost daily.

Most of these arrivals are single young males of military age.  Entire areas of European communities are now defacto Muslim enclaves, operating under their own laws (mainly Sharia) with their own representatives, courts, taxes, and police despite national laws to the contrary. As many don't work, there's been a tremendous strain placed on the economic safety net on the host nations, resulting in higher taxes and lower living standards for the native populations. There's even been calls for the locals to leave since their country is no longer theirs. It now belongs to the migrants! 

This influx has also impacted national foreign policies too. Many of the European countries have supported Israel since its inception in 1948. However, the large Muslim populations now make that position difficult to maintain in the face of massive protests, threats of riots and boycotts to force a withdrawal of support for Israel and more aid for Hamas and the people of Gaza.

In recent years, President Erdogan has repeatedly "threatened" to flood Europe (his NATO allies) with "millions" of  refugees from Syria. Turkey had previously granted temporary asylum and medical aid  to the Syrian refugees to help slow down the influx into Europe via Greece contingent on the EU  creating  a "safe zone" in Syria for the refugees, which haven't happen. Cyprus has joined with Turkey in the call for "safe zones".  Meanwhile, Turkey has created relatively safe "buffer zones" in their own in Syria.

As an aside, Turkey had  been used as staging point for these massive columns of migrants moving into Europe. In addition, Erdogan has also threatened to order Turkish nationals home from Europe, which could have a critical impact of Europe's economy due to the shortage of workers and overall decline in population. Europe's population has declined due to fewer women having children, smaller families, and its aging population, not to mention the impact of COVID-19.

Meanwhile, Turkey has forced Kurds out of refugee settlements in its east border. The Kurds had been under threat of genocide from ISIS, with many of their men having been murdered (mostly beheaded, hanged, or simply shot) while women and children were sold into slavery (girls as young as 7 or 8 were sold as "sex slaves" along with young women and others). Turkey and the Kurds have had a long history of conflict, which has often included Syria, Iran and Iraq, over the issue of Kurdish homeland.  

Turkey has also reiterated its pro-Palestinian stance as well as Erdogan has repeatedly demanded that Israel stop its military operations in Gaza. Israel responded to the brutal surprise attack by Hamas which resulted in the initial murder of 1400 men, women, and children (with many of the children being beheaded) with equal ferocity.  

Hamas's attack came by land, air, and sea, and was supported by missile and drone attacks. The air support came by way of hang gliders. In addition, Hamas also attempted to torch residences and businesses. Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has sworn total destruction of the terrorist organization and a "substantial reduction of Gaza".  The U.S. has sent two aircraft carrier task groups into the region, along with extra missile batteries while the UK has provided an aircraft carrier strike group.

Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian Hezbollah, designated terrorist group located in Southern Lebanon, has launched limited missile attacks into Northern Israel along the Golan Heights and promised to invade if Israel didn't halt its military actions in Gaza immediately. Hezbollah is substantially larger than Hamas. Both are backed by Iran.

As if that weren't bad enough, ISIS and Al-Qaeda factions in Syria have fired missiles into Israel while former guerrilla fighters or "Jihadist" from Afghanistan and Iraq have begun to gather along Jordan's border with Israel. Jordan, meanwhile, has called up its military to prevent any attempts by Jihadists to cross its borders into Israel. 

President Erdogan, while accusing Israel of deliberate attacks against the people of Gaza, has spoken with other regional leaders to ask that they apply additional pressure on Israel to stop its military operations. Erdogan has called Israel's attacks "genocide", which is a slight exaggeration, was not unexpected, and yet Hamas did intentionally plan and attack Israeli civilians knowing full well Israel's response.

Hamas knowingly placed weapons, ammo, communications and observation sites, missile batteries, artillery and tunnels in or near homes, schools, and hospitals, hoping Israel would hit them so they could accuse the Israelis of inhumanity and war crimes. Sorry, but you don't use people as shields. That's cowardice and criminal. If anyone is guilty of  attempted genocide, it must also include Hamas.

In the interim, Turkey has spoken out against American and British support of Israel as large pro-Gaza  protests are happening not only in Turkey and Europe, but also in Asia, Canada and even the United States. It appears Israel no longer has the worldwide support it once did, despite murderous attacks by those who've sworn to wipeout Israel and every single Israeli (it's even in their constitution).

So what happens next? The U.S. has obligatory urged Israel not to invade Gaza, but knows it will happen regardless. Might Turkey feel obliged to intervene on behalf of Gaza? Would this affect the solidarity of Turkey and the other members of NATO, especially the U.S. and UK? If that were to happen, how would it affect NATO's presence in Turkey and what about the ongoing war in Ukraine? Turkey is a vital staging point for weapons and supplies.

Might NATO sacrifice Turkey for Ukraine?  If so, Turkey could open its borders to allow a defacto invasion of Europe by migrants, ironically following the same route of the invading Ottomans in 1683, or withdraw its nationals from Europe's factories. Such a move could prove to be an economic catastrophe. Would support of Gaza also imply support of a internationally recognized terrorist group?

Would Turkey attempt to convene a coalition against Israel? There's no question that Turkey would like to recreate the power and prestige of the Ottoman Empire at the expense of Iran's growing regional influence. As a "free agent" Turkey would look extremely appealing to a expanding China too. Also, an expanded war involving Turkey would put a strain on America's military presence which it may not be able to deal with.

A recent Pentagon study revealed that the U.S. military was not up to fighting on multiple fronts. In fact, of all the armed force branches, only the U.S. Marines were 100% combat ready (hooyah devil dogs!). Thus an expanded conflict in the Middle East could give China the opening it needs to invade Taiwan, especially if North Korea's Kim Jong Un could be persuaded to get frisky with the Seoul.

Meanwhile, Israel might just start feeling a cold wind coming its way as Europe finds itself unable to  provide previous levels of support thanks to the large Muslim influx which could cause possible political instability at home. That pretty much leaves the U.S. and Israel, and with the U.S. having its own increasingly serious internal problems, it's not a wholly reliable ally.

Perhaps the solution (if there is one) is to reject Ukraine's application to join NATO while strengthening economic ties. Israel and the Palestinians need to revisit the idea of a "two state" solution. After all, the land wasn't exactly vacant when Israel moved in---neither 3000 years ago or in 1948. People may have been able to get away with it back then but not nowadays.

Nevertheless, Israel is not going anywhere, even if it means turning all that sand into glass. Everyone needs to formally accept Israel's existence, put on their big boy "sirwal" and get over it (you may substitute for a "wizrah"). No one is forcing them to trade or anything else with Israel. They just have to want peace.  And while we're at it, isn't time the Kurds were finally given a homeland too?   

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Turkey's Erdogan calls on Israel to stop its attacks on Gaza 'amounting to genocide'

Turkey moves ahead with its threats to send refugees to EU

Turkish president threatens to send millions of Syrian refugees to EU

Changing continent: The EU's population is declining, new figures reveal

Depopulation trends in Europe: what do we know about it?

The Jupiter Missiles and the Endgame of the Cuban Missile Crisis: A Matter of "Great Secrecy"

Justice and Development Party (Turkey)

  

Uneasy Bedfellows: Sweden, Finland, NATO and Putin

Sweden and Finland, two Scandinavian countries to Russia's northwest formally submitted an application to join NATO on May 17th in light of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin had previously warned both nations of the potential danger they faced by joining NATO rather than remaining neutral, which many took as an not so subtle Russian threat.

While Putin doesn't directly oppose the move by Sweden or Finland, NATO's Musketeer-like pledge of "one for all and all for one", makes it clear that any incursion by one NATO member would result in an appropriate military response on all NATO members, or so says Putin. So, why would Putin approve Finland and Sweden's admission to NATO and not the Ukraine's?

NATO came into being just after the end of World War II in 1945 as a means to offset a newly expanded Soviet Russia into the Soviet Union with the addition of so-called "liberated" nations from Nazi and fascist control. Later, in 1955, they would transform into the Warsaw Pact, which was in response to NATO, which was created in 1949, and intended as a buffer from a potential invading Western coalition.

Several nations, Sweden and Finland among them, wanted to maintain as military neutrality between themselves and the USSR. This was in part to keep open historic trade relations with Russia and its partners similar to the 1956 non-aligned movement which included India, Egypt, Yugoslavia and 117 other countries which sought to maintain a economic balance between the West and the Soviet states.

That, however, didn't preclude Sweden at least for conducting restricted joint military games with Europe. In 2017, Sweden held the largest war games in 20 years jointly with NATO members. In anticipation of joining NATO, Finland has participated in limited war games with NATO. Previously, there was always the fear of irritating the Russian bear.

Such fears gradually decreased after the implosion of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 and then, Soviet Russia in 1991, along with continual trade and economic integration which had created the European Union. Now, with the invasion of the Ukraine, that fear has reasserted itself and turned into one of self-preservation and urgency.

However, Sweden and Finland may have to hang on together a little longer. Turkey, the second largest military member of NATO (behind the United States) and one of two Muslim nations in NATO's (the other is Albania, which is 60% Muslim compared to 99% for Turkey) is opposing the entry of Sweden, and to a lesser degree, Finland, into NATO.

Under the rules of admission, any one member of NATO can oppose entry of a nation into its ranks. Turkey's President Erdogan has said that he opposes admission of Sweden and Finland over "security" issues and support of "terrorist" groups. Specifically, he is referring to the support of Sweden and Finland of the PKK---the Kurdish Workers Party---which promotes a free Kurdish State and allegedly has killed tens of thousands (mostly Turks) since 1984.

In addition, both Sweden and Finland have used their clout in the EU to oppose arms sells to Turkey with the express goal of using those weapons to fight Kurdish rebels known as the "YPG" or Syrian Kurdish People's Defense Units, which is linked to the PKK. Lastly, Erdogan opposes Swedish sanctuary of Fethullah Gulen's followers after a failed attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government in 2016. Gulen is a radical U.S. based Muslim cleric.

Finland has been part of the EU since 1995. Its largest trade partners are Sweden, Germany, and United States. Russia, which is Finland's 6th largest trading partner, gets 12% of its imports. Russia accounts for 5% of its exports. Notable but not overly significant.

Sweden, also an EU member since 1995, exports just 1.2% of its good Russia and in return gets back 2.5% in imports, so any economic effects from Russian sanctions would be minor at best. Sweden's largest trading partners are Norway, Germany, the United States, Denmark, and Finland, with Russia ranked 15th (as an aside, China is 6th in terms of exports, at $8.4 billion while Russia receives just $1.2 billion in exports).

So, economically, neither Finland or Sweden is of that important, and there's no reason to expect NATO membership would preclude an change in trade between either country and Russia. If anything, it may provide an additional conduit for trade between Russia and the West in the event of expanded sanctions.

So, why Russia would accept NATO membership of Finland and Sweden but not Ukraine? Does the answer again go to national security just as Putin has maintained all along? As far as Moscow would be concerned, the addition of NATO troops, ships, and particularly missiles in Sweden and Finland, will make little difference. If truth be known, Russian military planners long ago accounted for Sweden and even Finland in their response calculations should a war break out with NATO.  To paraphrase an old adage I adapted, "if you're not with me, you're against me. The only neutrals are in cemeteries".

While Sweden shares no common border with Russia, Finland does with some 830 miles of mostly inhospitable mountainous terrain, bitter cold, and dense forests with Russia. With Finland, the majority of its population and industry are located within 25 miles of Helsinki, which accounts for 27% of its total population (Finland only has a total population of about 5.5 million, and just nine cities with populations over 100,000).   

In Sweden's case, 85% of its 10.21 million population live in urban areas. About 3.3 million live in Stockholm and the surrounding metro area. The city of Gothenburg, Sweden's second largest city, has around 2 million, while another six cities have roughly 100,000 each.

Ukraine, on the other hand, has a 1,426 mile long border, which includes 199 miles along the Black Sea. Its land is among the most fertile in the world and it's moderately populated (both Russia and  Ukraine also share a similar language, history, and culture). Note too that Ukraine was occupied by the Soviets from 1922 until the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 before becoming independent in 1991. 

Russia's largest naval base since 1783 and home of the Black Sea Fleet is nearby at Sevastopol in the Crimea. It comprises an area of 334 square miles and a population of around 430,000 (when you add in surrounding towns and other populated areas, the total population jumps up to 510,000).

It's worth nothing that some military analysis believed that the Black Sea Fleet is the least prepared of the Russia's four main naval bases, ranking them in order of importance, Baltic, Northern, Pacific, and lastly, Black Sea. However, it is a key link between Russia and its ally, Syria. Then too, there's that matter of oil.

It was recently confirmed that the Black Sea shelf and the Azov Sea may potentially be one of the richest reserves in the world. Ukraine had, in fact, been quietly counting on acquiring full access to it and making closed doors deals with energy giants like Exxon, Dutch Shell, and BP (Europe receives approximately 40% of its oil and gas from Russia, with Germany---the EU's economic engine---getting 70% of its oil and gas from Russia), but then came the annexation of Crimea.

So, how much oil and gas are we talking about? Best estimates are 2.53 million tons of crude oil, 58.6 billion cubic meters of natural gas, and 1.231 million tons of natural gas condensate. That's more than enough to go to war for. It's estimated that Russia's annexation of the Crimea deprived Kyiv of some 80% of its energy potential.

If Russia manages to keep the four Donbass provinces as a result of the current war, it could possibly acquire most of the Ukraine's estimate 60 million tons of coal (90% of the Ukraine's coal lays in the Donets Coalfield, in the Donbass Region). While the Ukraine is rich in other natural resources, including gold, strategic metals, wood, and some of the most fertile soil on the planet, the loss of the Crimea oils and gas fields as well as the coal rich Donbass would severely hurt its energy needs.

Putin claimed the invasion of Ukraine was a matter of national security, and maybe it was, at least to a point. Putin didn't want NATO troops, artillery, tanks, and especially missiles on his border, and especially at the naval base in Sevastopol (even if it's a third rate base). He certainly doesn't want NATO surveillance staring him in the face.

But, it was the oil and gas of the Crimea which was key. And it's the coal rich Donbass region in the east that he wants. The war wasn't so much as a matter of national security as it is one of acquiring energy. In the near future it will be over the fertile soil like that of the Ukraine, strategic resources, and potable water elsewhere. Control of resources will the reason for all  future wars regardless of the "cause" assigned to it.

Since Sweden lacks a border with Russia and Finland's is so insignificant, Putin can use feigned indifference to their applications to join NATO. It doesn't hurt that Finland lacks oil and gas too. Otherwise, Finland's admission to NATO would be deemed a national security and denied just as in Ukraine. If Putin hoped to weaken NATO in his quest for oil and gas, he failed miserably.

 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

The leaders of Finland and Sweden say they will jointlysubmit their NATO applications

Finland and Sweden want to join NATO. Here how it works andwhat comes next.

Sweden's Top 15 Trading Partners

Finland's Top Trading Partners

Russia's naval base in Ukraine: Critical asset or point of pride?

Exxon and Shell win Ukraine oil bid

Energy in Ukraine

NATO chief sure spat over Sweden,Finland will be resolved

Fossil fuel companies are exploiting Russia's attack on Ukraine

Ceasefire in Syria: Buying Time for the Kurds and the Region

There's a tenuous truce right now between Syrian, Kurdish, and invading Turkish troops. The truce and ceasefire went into effect on October 17, just days after US forces withdrew from the northern region of Syria, separating Kurdish forces and Turks massing on their eastern border. The ceasefire agreement came as a result of---or perhaps despite of---a October 9th letter sent to Turkey's President, Recep Tayyip Erodogan, and President Donald Trump in which he urged the Turkish President not to be a "tough guy" or a "fool".

President Trump went on to say that the U.S. could and would use economic sanctions to disrupt the Turkish economy, and closed with a promise to follow up with a phone call. Allegedly the Turkish president wadded up the letter and threw it into the trashcan. The letter was written the same day Turkish forces began crossing into northern Syria. Whether or not the letter was taken seriously or should have been worded more diplomatically, it appears to have had the desired result.

The Kurds, who were instrumental in the defeat of not just ISIS, but also in the downfall of Saddam Hussein, have had a long standing feud with the Turks, primarily over the issue of sovereignty. Part of the land occupied by the Kurdish people over the last 5000 years or so, includes eastern portions of Turkey, as well as part of northern Syria, northern Iraq, and western Iran.

Following the end of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish people had been promised a independent homeland by the victorious allies (principally France and England who acquired the lion's share of the Middle East). However, just a few years later, that promise was broken and the Kurdish people were divided up between four newly created countries---Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey---with a semi-autonomous territory called Kurdistan created in northern Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Kurds were subjected to purges and genocide. Turkey even refused to acknowledge the Kurds on the eastern border, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead, along with attempts to suppress their language and culture. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wage a catastrophic war on the Kurds, including the use of nerve and saran gas attacks. Things weren't much better in Iran or Syria.

So why the invasion? An interesting question to be sure. Partly because a measure of stability has been re-established in the region with the defeat of ISIS. In addition, Syria, a long standing major Russian ally, is much more weakened militarily and economically because of its recent civil war with factions within the country (the U.S. was also looking at not just weakening Syria, but in toppling its president, Bashar el-Assad, in hopefully of a more pro-American government, which would deprive Moscow of a key ally in the region). In addition, it would allow the US an opportunity to put surveillance and perhaps ground forces close to Syria's border with Washington's archenemy, Iran. Perhaps this would give the Turks an opportunity to seize territory in northern Syria, as well as to get rid of the newly embolden Kurdish fighters and put an end to the idea of a independent homeland for the Kurdish people once and for all.

Another key factor is that the semi-autonomous province of Kurdistan sits on approximately 1/3 of Iraq's oil and gas reserves. Nothing in geopolitics gets more attention than the control and flow of oil and gas, which was a key factor in removing former ally, Saddam Hussein, who got a little too big for his britches with the invasion of Kuwait and it's oil production (as well as proximity to the Persian Gulf and their regional enemy, Saudi Arabia). Meanwhile, in Iran, the Kurds have been engaged in a "hot and cold" with whoever was in charge, for a independent homeland, especially since 1918. Since 2014, the intensity has increased to a much more "hot" insurgent war. Since 1946, there has been approximately 28,000 fighters killed, while from 1980 to 2000, around 30,000 civilians have died with no signs of easing hostilities.

President Erdogan alerted Trump on October 6th of his intentions to invade and requested that U.S. troops in the area be evacuated. Trump agreed, and the small detachment of soldiers and equipment were moved further south. What prompted Trump to do so, knowing full well that our Kurdish allies would likely be annihilated is unknown. At first there was a quip about the Kurds not "helping" us in World War II. I don't know if he was serious or not, but no one was smiling. The Pentagon and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle were quick to criticize Trump's decision. In the eyes of the world, especially the Middle East which places a very high value on trust and loyalty, this didn't go down well.

Now President Trump is trying to force the Turks back out of Syria and minimize any damage to the Kurds. However, damage has already taken place. Kurdish troops guarding captured ISIS prisoners have been forced to flee the area, leaving the battle-harden ISIS fighters (in at least one case, around 1000 ISIS prisoners were able to escape thanks to the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army).

In addition, a key Kurdish politician and women's right advocate, Hevrin Khalaf, along with eight others, were ambushed and murdered by Turkish supported rebels who oppose Syria's President Assad. Hevrin was secretary-general of the Future Free Syria Party and a key diplomatic figure in trying to find a peaceful settlement to the situation in Syria and the region. Thus far, approximately 38 civilians have been killed since the October 9th invasion began.

Trump's blunder is serious. It has damaged our image in the eyes of not just our friends and allies, but has also provided a strategic opening for our enemies. They will use this opportunity to show that the United States isn't to be trusted; that it's better to deal with them than an American government whose support ebbs and flows based on its current needs. It will be surprising if North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Russia's Vladimir Putin, or China's Xi Jinping don't make use of this error in judgment.

Another factor is that while Erdogan has agreed to a ceasefire, he has not agreed to a withdrawal of Turkish forces. This may result in a potential Syrian-Turkish clash. Given the strategic importance of Syria to Russia, there's little doubt that Putin will not allow any attempts at seizing either territory or toppling the Assad Government. Given that Turkey is a member of NATO and an important trading partner of the EU, that will prove to be interesting, especially given that an attack on one NATO partner is viewed as an attack on NATO itself.

How will the other NATO countries respond if Russian troops are introduced en-masse in Syria? In addition, China is also a friend of Syria, supplying it with an array of weapons as well as economic trade (Russia and China are supporters of the Iranians as well). Meanwhile, Israel sits isolated with its back to the Mediterranean with Iranian back Hezbollah to the north and Iranian back Hamas to the south. Not a position I'd like to be in.

So where does that leave us? First, it leaves President Trump with mud on that orange face of his. He has to first find a way to protect our Kurdish allies while at the same time convincing our NATO ally to back out gracefully. He has to be aware of Russia's keen attention to the situation (as well as China's). I would suggest that he be sure to keep both in the loop and well informed of what we're doing. Any misstep could set in motion something no one wants.

Meanwhile, he has to allow Erdogan to save face, especially in the eyes of the Muslim/Arab world. Turkey is 99% Muslim (mainly Sunni), however, it's also very secular and tends to be Westward looking. That makes Erdogan vulnerable to Muslim extremists who would love to turn Turkey into another Iran. As an aside, it would prove to be interesting to see how NATO would deal with a extremist backed civil war in Turkey, especially one supported by Iran. The potential affect could devastate the world economy, especially in Europe.

Trump will have to also find a way to reestablish trust with our Kurdish allies. It's essential, particularly given that ISIS is down but not out in the region. The Kurds not only provided us with military or logistic support, they were major sources of military intelligence. Without them, we would have had a much harder time not just defeating Saddam, but also in defeating ISIS.

Now that Turkish backed groups are busy freeing ISIS prisoners, we can expect that they'll be back with a vengeance. You can expect a uptick in terrorist attacks throughout the region, as well as in Africa, Europe, and even in Asia which has a large Muslim population. Lastly, you can bet that they'll look for ways to strike the U.S. both overseas and domestically.

I generally like Trump. I like his pro-American attitude and willingness to challenge that corrupt bipartisan status quo which has taken control of the government. As I've written many times before, and as academia has verified, America is an Oligarchy. Our Republic is gone. All that's left is the illusion of what we once had similar to what ancient Rome experienced. Trump has shown the moxie to fight back.

Naturally, he's being fought tooth and nail every step of the way by Democrats and Republicans and their corporate owners. Whoever advised Trump to step aside and allow the Turks to invade either knew nothing of political realities of the region or intended to intentionally sabotaged him, knowing the potential outcome of what those actions would bring. I don't know which is worse. I know that control, be it of assets, resources, or us, is the name of game and that lives matter little to the Oligarchy.


Turkish Backed Forces Are Freeing Islamic State Prisoners


Kurdish politician, other civilians 'executed' by Turkey-backed group

"We Have No Friends Except The Mountains": The Plight of the Kurdish People

When I was considering topics for this week's article, I originally gave serious consideration to writing about the possibility of whether President Trump will be brought up on impeachment charges. After all, the Democrats have been desperately looking for something...anything...to either discredit "The Donald" and effectively destroy any prospects of him winning a second term here and now.

The corporate owned media, which controls the narrative, has been in character assassination mode even before Trump took the oath of office. Even members within his own party have been secretly (and not to secretly) plotting to bring down this anti-establishment President. It's like the entire political establishment, so stunned that Hillary didn't get the coronation they thought she was entitled to, has been engaged in a cross party conspiracy to bring down the President.

Of course, Trump has given them plenty of ammunition hasn't he? Be it his comments to the media, his speeches, or his Tweets. Trump isn't exactly know for being subtle! And while he loves the public spotlight, I don't think he bargained for the kind of scrutiny he's been getting since day one. In fact, I seriously doubt any U.S. President has received the barely concealed loathing from the press that Trump has. Certainly, there's a lot to write about. However, it was a move by the President which caught my attention.

Just a few days ago, President Trump made the decision to withdraw American troops from areas in northern Syria in order to allow Turkish forces to launch an invasion, which may extend to parts of Iraq. The invasion will be directed against a small stateless group of individuals known as the Kurds. Now why would I choose to write about a bunch of stateless people instead of an attempt to bring down an American President?

Simply this. The Kurds are possibly the single most important group of people who've done more to help us in the Middle East than any other, with the possible exception of the Israelis. What's more, it strikes at something I deeply value on a personal level, namely loyalty and trust. But first, let me tell you about the Kurds.

If the Jews are considered a biblical people, then so too are the Kurds. The Kurdish people have been around almost from the beginning of civilization; originating, at least in part, from ancient Medes, and may be related to the ancient Hurrians who laid the groundwork for civilization itself. They've endured the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Persians, the Islamic Caliphates, Mongol invasions, and countless other empires which have come and gone. More recently, they survived the collapse and breakup of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

In fact, in 1920, the Allies (principally the French and British)"inherited" much of what was the Ottoman Empire, promised the Kurds a homeland in the Treaty of Sevres, yet just three years later, they reneged on their promise of a Kurdish homeland with the Treaty of Lausanne (this treaty established the boundaries of modern Turkey while craving out Iran, Syria, and Iraq. The result since has been decades of genocide, rebellion, and near constant war.

Ultimately, the Kurdish people were divided between four nations---Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Through it all, they adapted. They did whatever they could to remain together as a people with one goal in mind, to become a nation, while managing to exist mainly as a semi-autonomous province in northern Iraq. The estimated 35 million Kurds today represent the single largest ethnic group in the world which does not have a country of their own. Those who oppose a Kurdish homeland claim that it would represent a "second Israel" despite their presence in the same area for at least 5000 years, predating the countries which oppose its creation!

Currently, approximately 18% of the Turkish population is Kurdish. Most live in the southeastern portion of the country. As an aside, the Turkish Government refuses to even acknowledge the Kurds, referring to them as "Mountain Turks" instead. They're also guilty of several attempts at "ethnic cleansing" of the Kurds. About 10% of Iran's population are Kurdish, while 17% of Iraq's population are Kurds. Meanwhile, 9% of Syria's population, mostly in the northeast, are Kurdish. Outside of the region, there are substantial Kurdish populations scattered in about 21, mostly European, countries.

In terms of religion, the majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims of the Shafi sect, which puts them in conflict with the majority Hanafi sect of most of the Arab world, including the Sunni Turks. There are also large numbers of Christians and Zoroastrians (which predates Judaism). However, the fastest growing segment is secularism. In terms of their politics, the majority of Kurds support a secular democratic republic, which is quite different from the governments surrounding them which are mainly non-democratic theocratic monarchies (as an aside, Israel is the only democratic country is the region. A Kurdish state would make it two).

Fast forwarding to the 1990's, Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, attempted several times to eliminate the Kurdish people, mostly through attacks by mustard and sarin gas. I'm sure many of you remember seeing the horrific video on the nightly news. Between 1988 and 1991, an estimated 281,000 Kurds were murdered by Saddam. Of course, Congress and the United Nations promised to investigate, and there was the usual sanctions, yet little else happened, but here's a little something I bet you didn't know.

The Kurds had been a thorn in Saddam's backside for decades, but it wasn't until the U.S. promised them support to help oust Saddam that they really went all out. Washington even went as far as to promise to come to their aid in the event things got rough starting in the early 1980's (we were looking for an excuse to get rid of Saddam even then). However, when Hussein stepped up his attacks, we offered little more than words. When the mustard and sarin (nerve) gas started to fall, we were nowhere to be found. We didn't come to their aid like we had promised. Nevertheless, the Kurds still actively participated in both Gulf Wars. In fact, if it wasn't for their intelligence on the ground, our losses would have been much higher.

When things began to breakdown in Syria, it was the Kurds who helped us the most. It was the Kurds who took on ISIS fighters in village by village and town by town fighting. It was the Kurds who helped rescue thousands of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis, victims themselves of ISIS genocide or being sold into slavery, by attacking ISIS positions and evacuating large masses of Assyrian Christians and Yazidis to the safety of the Zargros mountains and away from certain death despite centuries of mutual mistrust.

It was Kurdish fighters, many of whom being women, who provided on-the-ground intelligence. In fact, approximately 11,000 Kurdish fighters---our "ally"--- died fighting ISIS. Without them, that could have been 11,000... or more...American soldiers. In short, if it wasn't for the Kurdish fighters, large swaths of Syria would have been lost to the Islamic terrorists.

So, what have we done on behalf of these beleaguered but invaluable allies? We've withdrawn our troops in the region in order to allow Turkish forces to engage them. The Turkish Army is one of the largest and most modern in the region while the Kurds have pretty much whatever they could capture or acquire on their own. They have no air force or other form of air protection from the Turkish Air Force. They lack heavy artillery or tanks. Most of what they have is light artillery and perhaps some shoulder launched rockets. The majority of what's available to the Kurdish fighters is small arms such as automatic rifles and pistols. They're grossly out gunned and outnumbered. Any direct military engagement will be a slaughter. This is what we've done for our allies, the Kurds. Can you imagine the damage this has done to our credibility, not just in the region, but worldwide? Here is America, your "ally of convenience"!

While many have argued (and rightly so) that the Middle East is a region largely stuck in the 9th century, our actions---regardless of whether they support or oppose the Kurds---demonstrates for all to see that the U.S. is a country not to be relied on. From a Middle Eastern perspective, we are a country which can't be trusted to stand by its friends. In a region like the Middle East, where one's word is their bond, our actions have shown friend and foe alike that we lack honor as a nation.

I'm one of those people who put great stock in honor and loyalty. Your word is your bond. I expect you to keep it come hell or high water just as I will. The same holds true for friends. If you're a friend, you can count on me to help, and by the same token, I expect the same. I cannot abide by a thief, a liar, or someone without honor. At the same time, I believe that the duty and responsibility of those with power is to protect and aid those without. What we've done and what we're doing to the Kurdish people is irreprehensible.

Of course, that's just my personal opinion. However, I'm not alone. Members of both political parties have spoken out over the President's decision. So have senior Pentagon officials as well as our allies who now have to consider just how reliable we are. An interesting aside is that Turkey is a key member of NATO. It provides a key staging area for our missiles; locating them virtually on Russia's doorstep and also putting them within striking range of our regional arch-nemesis, Iran. It also serves as the doorkeeper for all shipping traversing the Bosporus Strait between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, including the Russian Navy based in Sevastopol on the Crimea.

As I stated earlier, Turkey has one of the largest militaries in the region---412,691 active duty personnel along with another 378,700 in reserves. In fact, Turkey is second only to the U.S. in terms of a standing army in NATO. They have 2,246 tanks, 1,108 armored fighting vehicles, 872 Howitzers, and 418 multiple rocket launchers. They have "officially" 635 military planes, including 245 F-16 Falcons and 59 UH-1 "Huey" helicopters, not to mention four Boeing 737 AWACS air command and support aircraft. Naturally, it's chief supplier is the United States, which makes Turkey as very valuable customer for the domestic "merchants of death".

In addition, it's worth noting that prior to the recent "invasion" of Europe of military age "migrants' (cough cough), Turkey provided the largest source of low skill workers, especially to Germany. Turkey, which has been a candidate for the EU since 1999, is Europe's fifth largest trading partner. Its principal exports to the EU are mostly machinery, transport equipment, and manufactured goods while the EU exports machinery, chemicals, and manufactured goods.

As for the Kurds, they export nothing. They have no country, so they don't have a economic infrastructure. Much of what they produce simple items commonly found in street markets. However, Kurdish workers do make up an important niche of the employed in the various countries they live in. In terms of military, the semi-official Peshmerga (comprised mainly of forces loyal to either the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) along with other, much smaller parties, is approximately 325,000 strong, far less than what the Turks can bring to bear, and about the same in reservists though much less trained and even worse equipped.

Speaking of equipment, it's largely odds and ends of captured weapons; mostly of Russian, Chinese, or American origin. As I pointed out earlier, there are no tanks, heavy artillery, or aircraft. However, they do bring a lot of moxie to the fight, which at times, can turn battles. Equally, their communication and medical capabilities are just as lacking. Against a modern and well equipped military like Turkey, it can only be a delaying action to get civilians out of harm's way.

Lastly, you should know that of the thousands of ISIS prisoners being held throughout northern Syria, it's Kurdish troops who are guarding them. If, and when this invasion takes place, the Kurdish guards will be forced to evacuate the prisons, leaving them wide open. Can you imagine what will happen if these battle harden ISIS fighters escape, especially given their hatred for the West, Israel and the United States in particular? We'll see terrorist attacks and genocide on a whole new and far more bloodier level ever before.

So there you have it. We've turned a hungry wolf loose on a flock sheep. Trump quipped that the Kurds "didn't help us" in World War II, which is hardly the point. However, that the Kurds sit on 1/3 of the oil in Iraq does. I hope enough pressure can be brought to bear on President Trump to rescind his withdrawal order in time. However, it's likely that the Turks have anticipated this and move quickly to annihilate the Kurdish people as quickly as possible. It's little wonder that the Kurds have a saying, "We have no friends except the mountains". I wish I could say they're wrong; that the United States is their friend, but it looks like we're no better than all those who've come before us.


Trump's betrayal of the Kurds is a gift to Putin and Assad

Trump tells Turkish president U.S. will stop arming Kurds in Syria

Turkish troops advance into Syria as Trump washes his hands of the Kurds

The Hollow Echo of 'Never Again': America's Belated Acknowledgment of Genocide

Russian dictator Joseph Stalin once remarked that the death of a single individual was a shame. The death of millions was statistic. He should know. Joseph Stalin was responsible for the murders of between 20 and 30 million men, women and children. Some were ordinary factory workers. Some were simple peasant farmers while others bureaucrats who kept the machine functioning. Many were intellectuals---teachers, professors, lawyers, doctors, scientists---while others were professional military men; senior officers with decades of experience. Several were old comrades from the days of the revolution. A few were friends of Lenin. They especially had to go, and particularly if they may have been pry to "the secret"---the "Last Political Will and Testament of Lenin" wherein the great revolutionary warned that Stalin should never be allowed leadership of the party and state.

Lenin felt that while Stalin was useful during the revolution and subsequent Civil War which followed, those unique skills which he cultivated would not serve "Socialist Russia" . Lenin thought that Stalin was too brutal; too dangerous. He was right. Even at the time of his death, Stalin had already put in motion plans for a new purge. This time it would be specifically the Jews, although he never really spared them before. This time, however, they were to be his focus, especially the professionals. The papers had been signed and distributed for the roundups to begin. Only his death and unwillingness of the Secret Police to act without direct authorization prevented the murder of tens of thousands.

Hitler, at least tacitly approved, the roundup and execution of some 6 million Jews (although to this day, no signed documentation by Hitler has ever been found). Another 2 or 3 million homosexuals, mentally handicapped, political opponents, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, pacifists, Slavs, and gypsies were also imprisoned. Many were executed just as the Jews were. In fact, the majority of gypsies were Roma, and as a percentage of population, more of them died than of Jews, though this fact is often ignored (some estimates put the figure at a minimum of 25% of the entire Roma population). The Japanese military were just a brutal when it came to the Chinese, especially the "Rape of Manchuria" where thousands upon thousands were sacrificed to the Emperor and the Rising Sun.

Pol Pot did his share of murder too; mostly fellow Cambodians, but Thais, Vietnamese, or individuals from Laos, died just as well. We really don't know how many people perished in these "killing fields", but the number is certainly well into the millions. During World War I, the Turkish army massacred tens of thousands of Armenian men, women, and children with equal zeal. While a precise number may never be known, the Turkish government still refuses to apologize or even acknowledge this Armenian genocide. Perhaps if they pretend it never happened, history will forget.

These are by no means all. Not even close. There have many more acts of genocide, from the Sudan in Africa to the Kurds in northern Iraq and eastern Turkey and Serbia against the peoples of Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo; many of whom were Moslem. Each and every time we promise there will be no more. We promise "Never Again" in sympathetic echo with the survivors of the Holocaust, and yet it does. Over and over again. This time it's the Syriac/Assyrian Christians, the Yazidis, and the Kurds at the hands of ISIS and we, as a nation, sit on our hands and do nothing. Perhaps this is because "our" government has refused to acknowledge the atrocities, and yet it's common knowledge. We know who is perpetrating it because they open brag about it. The film it and post the video on social media for all to see. The victims speak out to whomever will listen---international non-government organizations (NGOs), religious groups, the news media, humanitarian aid organizations, and bloggers. They film what's happening and post it themselves on social media sites. Whatever they can do to make the world aware, and yet other than the usual verbal condemnations and feigned expressions of anger, nothing becomes of it.

ISIS, as most everyone knows, happened on President Obama's watch, as did Boko Harem, Al Shabaab, and other terrorist groups who thought Al Qaeda wasn't extreme enough. Now I can see some Left leaning zealot wagging their finger at me and claiming that it wasn't Obama's fault; we should blame George W. Bush who opened the Iraqi "Pandora's Box", or maybe his old man, George H. Bush, who, along with a Arab and Western coalition, invaded Iraq in order to liberate Shell and BP Oil...err...I mean the Kuwaiti People. That might be true, but it also goes further back than that and includes just as many Democrats as Republicans. Money and power knows no party loyalty.

However, it has been during the Obama Administration, the ISIS was formed, albeit allegedly with US assistance to combat Al Qaeda which spun off on its own (remember, at its core Al Qaeda was originally formed with US help to bog down the Russian military's invasion of Afghanistan). It was also under Obama that US combat troops were reduced without a stable governmental infrastructure or national military and police force (of course too, the invasion of Iraq was done without any post-war planning). It was also under Obama that the situation in Syria deteriorated so badly (one might argue that it was due to US efforts that the situation in Syria deteriorated so badly while Russia's assistance to their old regional ally has kept the Syria from collapsing into utter anarchy amid the likelihood that the terrorist organizations emerging as the strongest players. ISIS has already claimed large swaths of eastern Syria as part of their new Islamic state.

It has been this regional turmoil which has created the situation in Europe with the so-called "refugees". Millions of individuals have fled their homes for Europe (although UN guidelines say that refugees can sanctuary only in the closest non-combatant nation, not cross through those countries), with millions to follow. Germany agreed to take up to six million, with Austria, Norway, Sweden, Demark, the UK, France, and other regions in both western and eastern Europe agreeing to take millions more. What has resulted is chaos, and not just with the disorderly logistics, but with a clash of cultures as many of the refugees seemed to be under the misimpression that Europe was going to adopt their customs, traditions and Sharia law instead of them adapting to the laws and traditions of their host countries. This has resulted in hundreds of attacks on women, including gang rapes and murders, plus demands that women change their behavior and dress, demands that festivals stop, that certain foods and beverages be removed from menus, no ringing of church bells, businesses cease work during Moslem prayer times, and so on.

A number of Moslem refugees claim they were promised "free" food, "free" education, jobs---if they want them, "free" medical care, and much more before leaving. In fact, German citizens living in public housing have been evicted to make room for their new occupants. German women have been asked to modify their dress and activities while German students were instructed to "volunteer" to work in refugee camps; to clean, wash, pick up trash, and whatever other duties the Moslems themselves don't want to do. Meanwhile, German school girls have been asked not to wear short dresses, short pants, or "revealing" tops in order not to "offend" any Moslems girls. There are stories too of a water park in England amending their dress policy to be "Sharia acceptable". Several police chiefs throughout Scandinavia have complained that they've lost control of their communities to these "refugees".

While all of this is terrible, there is another story I want to talk about. Despite the millions of Moslem "refugees" crossing into Europe, there are thousands of Kurds, Syriac/Assyrian Christians, and Yazidis who are being denied permission to cross Turkish or Syrian borders. Meanwhile, ISIS has been doing its best to exterminate everyone of them they come across. This is perhaps the most systematic genocide since World War II. ISIS has brazenly boasted that they will murder every single one, though several hundred young girls have been sold into slavery. After the fall of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, which sprung the from pro-democratic "Arab Spring" movement, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, which is anything but democratic, somehow was voted into power, went on a unofficial anti-Christian bent.

Approximately 10% of the Egypt's 90 million are Coptic Christians, which are a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church like the Syriac Christians. A few hundred were murdered or beaten while dozens of businesses, homes and churches were destroyed; not to mention reports of young children, mostly girls, being kidnapped by Moslem mobs and either sold or given away to be forcefully converted and raised by strangers. This ended when the Muslim Brotherhood were ousted from power by the Egyptian military. The Syriac/Assyrian Christians, which are the oldest Christian sect in the Middle East---since at least the first century--- have largely been left alone until just recently. In the city of Mosel, which has had a Christian presence since the first century and thousands once lived, there are now zero Christians left. None.

The Kurds have faced persecution for centuries by everyone from the Ottomans to the Turks to the Iranians and Iraqis. Thousands have been killed or wounded since fighting began between them and ISIS. However, the Kurds have proven to be very effective fighters and have more than held their own against ISIS, but their daily lives remain precarious. The Yazidis too have faced persecution off and on centuries, but generally have been left alone, again, until recently. Since the rise of ISIS, all three groups, along with other, smaller sects such as those of the Zoroaster faith (perhaps the oldest religion in the world) and Buddhists have faced unrelenting attacks, which usually including beheadings, crucifixions, burying alive, drowning, burning, hangings, throwing off rooftops (a favorite for the murdering gays) and so much more that even Stalin would have smiled. ISIS makes no distinction between any of the faiths in their choice of victims, nor is there any consideration for seniors, the handicapped, women, children.

With the rise of ISIS, the world has watched this multiple genocide and has done nothing. Although numbers are hard to come by, it is estimated that some 5000 Yazidis have been killed and at least 300 women have been sold into sex slavery over the past three years. An estimated 7000 have been forced to convert and between 50,000 and 70,000 have become refugees, fleeing to Northern Iraq and the protection of the Kurds or to Jordan and Lebanon. At one point, Christians numbered 12 million in the Middle East. That number is now but a fraction of its former figure. In fact, ISIS has made it point of making Christians "Enemy Number One". Approximately close to 100,000 have been murdered according to a October 2014 report Father Gabriel Nadaf, an Israeli Christian Arab leader, gave to the UN Human Right Council. That's including the tens of thousands made homeless or the hundreds of churches destroyed, not to mention historical artifacts blown to bits or burned.

What this is is nothing short of calculated genocide of peoples based on their ethnicity in the case of the Kurds and Yazidis and religion in the case of everyone. This isn't new. It's been going on for years if not for a decade. It's perpetrator has been ISIS. It's been no secret. It's been reported on by several media outlets. It's been denounced by a few governments and NGOs, and yet, just today, March 17, 2016, John Kerry, the US Secretary of State "officially" called it "genocide". What I find hardest to understand isn't the timid accusation of ISIS or the "better-late-than-never" response of the Obama Regime. It's the fact that we've known about this for years but have and continued to reject refugee status to the Syriac Christians, the Yazidis, or Kurds into the United States, yet we have no problem approving Moslems---at least 40,000--- from the same areas being heavily recruited by ISIS into the US. Naturally, we're promised they'd be "thoroughly vetted" but as we've seen, that haven't worked out to well. In Europe, these same three groups have been stopped at the borders (mainly Turkey) and denied refugee status.

Yet millions of Moslems pour into Europe; some from even areas under not affected by the conflict, with dozens if not hundreds of ISIS fighters crossing with them. Those who have managed to make it into Europe and the refugee camps have been beaten and robbed with the women and young girls reportedly being assaulted or raped. Why is that? Do you think that if the Obama Regime had made a request or applied pressure they would have still been denied access? Probably not. There's a pretty good chance they would have been allowed refugee status, not to mention the next to zero probability they were covert terrorists which can't be said of the Moslems now occupying European towns and cities. What has caused a mostly Christian Europe to refuse fellow Christians, and a minority, sanctuary? Fear of being called some name? I sure hope not.

What we have here is the classic example of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not much different from the Jews or gypsies of WWII Europe really. Yet, we've lacked the courage to step up and do anything, until now, and then it's mostly empty words. I guess I would be more interested in knowing why, after insurmountable evidence and the condemnation of NGOs, religions organizations, leading international politicians, is the US just now willing to acknowledge the obvious? America has already been forced to endure treasonous acts by government officials with nothing but delays, lies, word games, and blatant displays of arrogance to show for it not to mention countless acts of incompetence. If you want an example of what's wrong with our government, I think this would be a good example.



ISIS Has Committed Genocide, Obama Administration Declares
http://abcnews.go.com/US/secretary-state-john-kerry-declare-isis-committed-genocide/story?id=37713938


ISIS "Declares War on Christians"
http://virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=14593


Some 100,000 Christians killed per year over faith, Vatican says
http://virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=14593


The Fight of Their Lives
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/fight-lives


Persecution of the Yazidis by ISIL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL


UN Investigators Accuse ISIS of Genocide Over Attacks on Yazidis
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidis-iraq-un-panel.html?_r=0


Yazidi refugees flee ISIS but find door to US asylum closed
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/08/12/yazidi-refugees-flee-isis-but-find-door-to-us-asylum-closed.html