The Lessons of October 7th 2023: The Dangers of Religious Extremism and Intolerance

The horrific attack by Hamas on October 7^th, 2023  has produced a ripple effect few anticipated. Israel has long enjoyed the support from the West and most of the rest of the world. It’s chief exception was the Communist Bloc of the Cold War and their client states, mostly in the Middle East. Yet, for some reason the unprovoked attack by an organization known for its brutal Nazi-like treatment of its own people and for committing mass acts of terror again mostly innocent bystanders, has had a rather strange, counterintuitive response.

To briefly recap, on October 7^th, 2023, about 7000 terrorist on motorcycles, powered paragliders, small boats, attacked Israel at 119 points along and near the Israeli-Gaza border. Among the attackers was “Nukhba”, which are specially trained commando units of the Hamas military along the lines of Iraq’s Republican Guards, noted for the ferociousness and absolute dedication.

The attack, code named “Al Aqsa Flood” began with a launch of approximately 5000 rockets over 20 minutes into and along Israel’s border with Gaza (and another 1000 rockets launched during the attack). The assault wasn’t directed at  Israeli military bases as you would expect from a legitimate military operation.  Instead, it centered on small civilian, mostly farming, communities or “Kubutzes”  which were either unarmed or very lightly armed.

About 1,195 men, women, and children were murdered. Many were brutally raped (including children), beaten, tortured, and burned alive. The lucky ones were simply killed outright. According to Israeli and international sources, among those dead were 736 Israeli citizens and 36 children, 79 foreign nationals, and 379 members of Israel’s security forces consisting primarily of off duty members of the military, medical teams, police, etc.

The focal point, however, seems to have been on individuals attending a family oriented  “Supernova Sukkot Music Festival”  or simply the “Nova Music Festival”. There was an additional 378 individuals murdered along with 44 hostages taken (all told, there was a total of 251 hostages, of which 30 were children). The perpetrators, armed mainly with  hand grenades, handheld rocket launchers (“RPG”), and AK type assault weapons, was lead by the Al-Qassam Brigade, and groups of Palestinian civilians who were being egged on by the terrorists.

Other groups believed to have participated in the October 7^th attack included the National Resistance Brigades, which is military wing of the Maoist Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist organization, the secular Lion’s Den group, along with elements of other terrorist organizations including the Iranian backed Hezbollah, which operates mainly in southern Lebanon.

Following the attack, some 44 countries immediately condemned the attack (which some have referred to as blatant genocide against the Israelis) while many Arab and Muslim nations claimed that the attack was justified because of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory, which had taken following the 1967 “Six Day War” in which Israel defeated five Arab nations whose publicly stated intent was “pushing Israel into the sea”. The Arab forces were soundly defeated, and as a result, some 300,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians were subsequently expelled from the occupied areas.

Hamas, however, claimed the attack was not just over occupied territory, but the continued blockage of the Gaza Strip (which Israel, along with Egypt, maintains in order to prevent further military material from entering the country), as well as the continued expansion of settlements into Palestinian owned land (which has often included personal property which has been in private hands for generations and blatant destruction of homes by the Israeli military with little or no warning as part of Israel’s “reoccupation” of the land).

Israel’s response to the massacre  was as swift as it was brutal. Approximately 50,810 Gaza Palestinians  have been killed while Hamas’s military strength has dropped from around 60,000 to just around 18,000 or less. Bear in mind too that Hamas, which is regarded internationally as an Iranian backed Sunni terrorist organization, typically uses civilians as shields. They often operate missile sites from schools, playgrounds, daycares, and hospitals. They regularly store weapons in private homes and businesses, while controlling nearly every aspect of life in Gaza.

 Although Israel regularly warns civilians in Gaza in advance of a pending response (unlike most countries), Hamas refuses to allow civilians to either vacate or to move their missiles and military hardware away from home, schools, or hospitals. The hits are recorded as “civilian targets”, making for good propaganda and public media events for the uninformed and an opportunity to discredit the IDF and Israeli government.

Foreign aid, which includes food, fresh water, medical supplies, as well as replacement parts for equipment, generators, heating/cooking oil, desalination pumps,  blankets, and so forth, are sold on the black market for weapons or cash, Sometimes they are rationed out to the populace in order to keep them in line (and staged photo ops for the foreign media). Meanwhile, Israel is blamed for so-called “Palestinian genocide” while their Hamas leaders enjoy luxury vacations throughout the region (Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt are favorite spots).

What’s most interesting about the attack on Israel by Hamas is the  backlash it produced which was totally unexpected. Instead of the usual support Israel has historically received, many nations, especially in Europe, and individuals, particularly among the college age youth, blamed Israel not just for the attack by Hamas, but also for intensity of their response and even accuse Israel of intentionally triggered a genocide of the Gazan people.  As an aside, this backlash hasn’t just been directed at Israel. It’s been aimed at the United States, which has traditionally supported Israel, Jews and anyone who supports Israel.  

In some ways it reminded me of the latter days of the Vietnam War when mainly young Leftwing anti-war protesters embraced Cuban revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara and “Uncle” Ho Chi Minh, with their images showing up nearly everywhere. North Vietnamese and Russian “ Sickle and Hammer” flags were almost commonplace at nearly every protest.

Many of the youth were openly promoting Communist ideals (I suspect much of it had to do with tweaking the noses of the Status Quo as it did anything) while burning their draft cards. Nowadays, its Palestinian flag alongside  (ironically) the LGBQT+ flag showing up at protests while they go about illegally trying to block traffic and screaming at anyone who disagrees with them.  I wonder if anyone ever told them that the only way you ultimately change the Status Quo is with ideas and action, not by throwing temper tantrums?

Nevertheless, despite all the meaningless political rhetoric, the empty headed talking heads, the faux militants with the multicolored hair and nose rings, and the wannabe revolutionaries, I wondered if anyone has bothered to ask the people of Gaza what they thought? They are the ones being most affected. They deserve to speak for themselves. Afterall, it’s their opinion alone that actually counts.

When asked about Hamas, most Gazans describe the terrorist organization as “oppressive” (especially for women) and typically placing the interest of Iran ahead of theirs.  They blame Hamas’s attack on Israel for the carnage which has befallen them, while criticizing Hamas for not apologizing for the civilian deaths.

They claim that while Israel “dehumanizes” them, so does Hamas, which sees them as a tool to be used against Israel and the West. They do not accept Hamas emphasis on martyrdom, saying that they value life more. To Hamas and other Islamists the Gazans claim, Palestinians must die so that they can justify their existence.  Gazans point out that Leftist Arab groups and Islamists don’t like for Gazans to speak independently, preferring to control their narrative for them, using their voices to promote their agendas.

Just over 80% said they wanted new elections when the war was over. When asked who they trust to lead Gaza after the war, 40% of Gazans said they’d support  Fatah, the secular based party which currently governs the West Bank while just 6% would back Hamas (no real surprise when you understand that Hamas hasn’t allowed any free and open elections in Gaza since 2006).  When asked if their was a new election after the war, who would they support, the results were pretty similar. 47% said they’d vote for Fatah while again, just 6% would back Hamas. It’s worth noting that 53% of Gazans didn’t believe Hamas would be willing to form a unified national Palestinian government with Fatah.

When asked about the war, 84% said that Hamas should release all hostages.74% wanted an international organization to manage the Rafah border with Israel.  62% wanted to see a two state solution with Israel similar to what was originally proposed in 1948 but rejected by the Arab League. 19% thought a single state solution was the best option. Among Israelis, just 26% think a two state solution was still possible.

It’s worth noting that 74% said they didn’t think Israel was serious about ending the war. Afterall, Israel is winning. However, 20% thought that Hamas wanted to keep the war going as well.  Recent intelligence reports seem to confirm this assumption.

According to these reports, while Hamas had lost half of its original strength since 2023, there’s strong evidence that their recruiting efforts have been successful in bringing them back to near their pre-October 7^th strength. Most of the new recruits are from countries with poor economic opportunities.

This bodes poorly not just for the people of Gaza and Israel, but the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. Groups like Hamas are interested in just one thing---the utter destruction of Israel at any cost (followed by the annihilation of all Kefirs (Non-Muslims). After that, they can murder each over which sect---Shiite or Sunni---is God’s chosen religion of peace and tolerance.   

Iran, perhaps Israel’s moral enemy, has continued with its own nuclear program, allegedly with the intent of launching nuclear tipped missiles at its archenemy with the understanding that such an attack would result in an immediate response and the total destruction of Iran and its people. When involved in a religious war, ordinary lives are inconsequential. They wallow in the gore of war like pigs in mud.

Groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and dozens of others also understand this all too well. They  care little for the people they claim to govern. They are mere sacrifices intended for their alters of extremism, ignorance and unquestioned obedience. They bow their heads in prayer and profess to worship one thing when in truth what they worship is oblivion.

While the majority of Gazans no longer support Hamas, many fear that Hamas will retain control, and the killing will only continue. Helmed in on all sides, they’re trapped. ISIS and Al Qaeda are greedily building their own caliphates on the corpses of Syrian, Kurdish, and Yazidi dead.  In Iran, the ayatollahs are showing signs of loosening their grip on power but still remain strong enough and determined to lead the people to the apocalypse.  

There’s no question about their dedication to the cult of death, while we chose not to take them at their word. We like to pretend that somehow, they’re the victims. The Gazans and other Palestinians would disagree. So would the Iranian people and the Kurds, the Yazidis, and countless others of various religions, ethnic groups, gender, and sexual orientation.  You want to talk about intolerance and hatred? Well, here it is in one neat package with a noose for a bow.

 In 1948, just three years after the horrors of the Holocaust,  we thought they won’t come for a newly proclaimed Israel, yet they did. They refused the creation of a Palestinian nation too. Today, some 76 years later,  they still seek Israel’s destruction.  We thought they’d never come for Europe. They have. Europeans are increasingly minorities where they live. Many think they won’t come for Russia, India, Canada, Mexico, Bolivia, or China, but they will just as they will eventually come for us unless we stop  religious and political extremism, intolerance, and authoritarianism in all its forms.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

October 7 Hamas led attack in Israel

Al-Qassam Brigades

Nova music festival massacre

Six Day War

Casualties of the Gaza war

Gazans risk safety to share their criticisms of Hamas

What Gazans Really Think of the War, Who They Blame, and WhatThey Want to Happen Next

Has Palestinian’s perception of Hamas changed?

While Gazans Suffer, Leaders Live in Luxury

Hamas leaders worth $11bn revel in luxury---while Gaza’speople suffer

Analysis: Hamas has been hit hard by Israel, but is not outof Gaza

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani: Making the World Safer or Lighting the Fuse for WWIII?

I'll cut straight to the chase and right to the point. President Trump ordered the execution of a cold blooded terrorist. A man who was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Yemites, Afghanis, Yazidis, Kurds, and American servicemen and women as well as civilians. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was involved in aiding the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boku Haram.

They are responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims, plus the kidnapping, rapes and selling of young women into slavery. The final straw for the U.S. was the murder of an American contractor, ordered by General Soleimani. From a moral perspective, the world is far better off by his removal. But is the world any safer? By removing this individual are we any closer to world or even regional peace?

There's no question that General Soleimani, who headed the Quds Force, part of the hard line Revolutionary Guards which serves as a cross between the CIA, the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and Delta Force, was despicable; someone on the same level as a Tamerlane or Himmler. President Trump has received nothing but criticism, ranging from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and members of the Democratic Party to the print and electronic media to the talking heads on television.

Pelosi is miffed that Trump didn't tell her first about the pending attack. But then, President Obama didn't tell her beforehand about taking out Osama Ben Laden either and she was just fine with it. In fact, not only Obama, but George W. Bush had ordered the targeting of key ISIS and Al Qaeda leaders without alerting either Pelosi or Congress and everyone seemed okay with that. In fact, the media never said "boo" to either about it. Now why is that? My guess is that this is nothing more than an ongoing attempt at character assassination; of promoting public distrust of President Trump.

So, what was General Soleimani doing in Iraq on January 3rd in the first place (and at a public airport no less)? His presence there was supposed to have been forbidden by the Iraqis. Well, it turns out that he was there to meet with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandi, the deputy commander of the Iranian sponsored Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella organization overseeing the various pro-Iranian militias.

Al-Mudandi had arrived with a small convoy to meet with Soleimani and escort him to a safe location outside of Baghdad, presumably to coordinate plans for future terror attacks on pro-Western targets, including U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Al-Mudanhi and a driver were also killed in the attack. It should be pointed out that the drone attack which took out Soleimani came just days after a failed attempt to seize the U.S. embassy by pro-Iranian militias in Baghdad had ended (that attack was in response to an earlier U.S. air attacks killing 25 Hezbollah fighters).

In addition, under the direction of Soleimani, members of the Revolutionary Guards had seized or attacked several oil tankers in the Gulf of Hormuz, attacked a Saudi oil field, and shot down a U.S. surveillance drone (okay, that may have been justified). Pro-Iranians militias, operating through Quds Force, have also been active in Syria and supplying both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Giza.

So now what? Well, in keeping with tradition, Iran responded. They withdrew from the agreement restricting their development of "nuclear reactors" (wink wink) which, to be honest, they've not been following anyway. They also launched a limited missile attack on two American bases in Iraq (no one was killed or injured). Heck, they've even raised their "red flag of doom" on the Jamkaran Mosque in Qom to signify a pending war (this is Iran's largest and most famous mosque).

Nevertheless, while their flag stills flies atop the mosque, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that "proportionate measures" have been taken and the matter is now concluded. He added that Iran didn't want any further escalation but would respond in self defense is provoked further. However, Iran's religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the Iranian missile attacks a "slap on the face" of the U.S. hinted at possible, more "severe" attacks to come in the near future.

Iran has to be careful in its response. First, to overreact is to essentially admit that Western intelligence was correct about Soleimani's importance as the mastermind behind Iran's attempts to destabilize the region and export its brand of radicalized Islam. Iran, while acknowledging Soleimani as the head of Quds Force, has long denied any involvement in terrorism in the region. Their response must be measured; even downplayed. He must be treated a merely a high ranking general.

Secondly, despite American led sanctions, Iran depends heavily on its restricted oil exports to keep the economy going. Iran has close ties to Russia, China, and North Korea which has helped. So has its limited trade agreement with the EU (especially France, Germany and the UK), along with various Arab nations including the United Arab Republic (UAR). To engage the U.S. in a tit-for-tat conflict could easily disrupt Iran's current trade arrangements, which would plunge the country into an economic spiral for which it might not recover.

At the same time, a enlarged U.S. military involvement in the region could also trigger panic in the West and drive the cost of oil and gas to near record highs (some have predicted as much as $100 per barrel of oil). Despite having one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, Iran wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. However, Iran would be no Iraq. The Iranians are much better trained and equipped than Saddam's forces thanks to support from Russia and China.

In addition, Iran is the lynchpin in the "We Hate America and Israel" club. Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, while appreciating the removal of a despot like Saddam Hussein, resent the continued presence of Western forces in the region which is viewed as a "conquering force". They also disapprove of our continued support of Israel. A war could result in Iran being able to unite Muslims and turn it from a political/economic conflict into a religious one (and as any historian will tell you, religious wars are the most ruthless and bloody of them all. After all, you're murdering on behalf your god. How can you possibly compromise or surrender?).

I would expect Hamas and Hezbollah to attack Israel with weapons its stockpiled from Iran. Additionally, it would provide an irresistible opportunity for North Korea to act up as well with a possible attack against South Korea, launch missiles at Japan (which it hates as much as it hates us) or even Hawaii or U.S. territories like Guam or Midway. Who knows, maybe China would use U.S. preoccupation to retake Taiwan. After all, we can't be everywhere and with over 20 years of active military engagement, we're kind of pooped. Our military badly needs time to reset, overhaul equipment and replenish inventory. The burnout rate of military personnel is at record highs (as are suicides).

Lastly, there's home...our home, America. Although Homeland Security, U.S. intelligence agencies, members of Congress, and the media have long known but remained virtually silent on the point that there is the strong likelihood of the Muslim terrorist cells in the U.S and quite possibly Canada, the UK, Mexico, throughout Western Europe.

For that matter, Russia and China likely have terrorist cells as well. Both Russia and China have had ongoing problems with Muslim separatists. There are some 9.4 million Muslims in Russia; mostly living in the southwestern portion of the country. Russia's troubles with the Chechens started back in 1994 and is still going on, with thousands dead and no end in sight. China has been attempting to suppress the Muslim Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Province for a couple of decades now.

The Uyghur comprise almost 50% of the population in Xinjiang with large pockets throughout mostly western China, including the Hui, Kyrgyz, and Kazakh who are also mainly Muslim. Although no official numbers are kept, it's estimated that China has around 23 million Muslims---up to 2% of their entire population. However, the more pressure applied by the Chinese, the more they resist. Already, almost 1.5 million Muslims have been imprisoned in what Chinese officials called "reeducation camps".

A war or even a serious uptick in hostilities between Iran and the United States benefits no one. It would deeply affect not just the already fragile economy of Iran (and possibly topple their government), but further destabilize the region, and deeply affect the economies of Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the world. It could engulf the world in a asymmetrical war which could last decades and where there would be no winners.

It's even possible, if not likely, that the end result could be a nuclear war. At the very least, it could involve chemical and biological weapons regardless of any so-called "international prohibitions". I don't care what god you believe in, I can't imagine one who would want to see all of humanity either destroyed or reduced to subsistence conditions. We could only hope that aliens would come down and save us from ourselves.

But reality being what it is, this is about oil. It's about gas. It's also about its control and flow. As an aside, Iran had just announced the discovered of an new oil field capable of producing over 56 billion barrels of oil. Think that's a coincidence? The ruling Oligarchy is, as readers of A/O already know, all about the control of assets and resources, which, by the way, also includes us.

If they are unable to acquire control through normal business channels, then they will employ the resources of government, which they control, to achieve their desired consequences, backed by a media they also control, to manufacture a properly suited villain. Add a dash of nationalism, a pinch of fear and you've got yourself the recipe for a military "intervention". Whether it's called a "war of liberation", a "fight for freedom" or "spreading democracy", it's all about control and, of course, profit.

President Trump, whether you love him or loathe him, acted on the intelligence presented to him by his advisors and generals, along with their recommendations. Trump was and will always be a businessman. He's not an expert on foreign policy or military matters. Obama, with virtually no political experience and had been a local "community organizer" wasn't either. George W. Bush was a largely unsuccessful businessman and mediocre governor wasn't much better.

All three men acted on what others told them. This is where you'll find the ruling Oligarchy; the "Deep State". It lays within the system itself, which makes the situation all the more dangerous. We can only hope that those who advise the president, whoever that may be, are acting in our national interests with an eye toward preserving Humanity rather than towards short term power and wealth.

'Stick of dynamite in a tinderbox': Why General Qassem Soleimani was killed, and what may happen next

European Commission: Iran


Iran supreme leader says missile attack was a 'slap on the face' of the U.S. but it was 'not enough'.


Trump Says Iran Appears to Be Backing Down From Conflict After Overnight Strikes


Analysis: The different stages of Iranian support for ISIS

"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

In God We Trust? Well, Maybe: The Trend of Religion in America

Pick up any piece of American currency and you will find the words "In God We Trust" somewhere on it (it first appeared on coins starting in 1864). We sing patriotic songs like "God Bless America" and say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" , added by President Eisenhower in 1954 to set us apart from the "godless" Communists at the urging of a wide range of groups like the Knights of Columbus and various veteran organizations As an aside, it was also President Eisenhower who signed the bill approving the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on all US currency in 1956. Even when you take an oath in a court of law, you're asked to tell the trust "so help you God" with your hand on a bible no less and the Ten Commandments appear in every courtroom.

Of course, there are those who claim that America was founded to be a "Christian" nation, though in truth it was founded to be a religious neutral nation; that is, a nation where all religions were welcome and where there would be no official state religion, unlike Europe where government's tended to have a state approved religion and all others had to obtain both permission to practice and to pay a special tax in addition to the state "pew" tax. Nevertheless, America was a nation which took great pride in its religious tolerance and in its devotion; adopting Judeo-Christian ethics into its laws. And so we remained since our founding as nation, that is, until recently.

Back when President Eisenhower signed those two bills into existence, approximately 70% of households attended some sort of religious services on a regular basis. 97% of Americans identified as "Christian", be it Protestant (70%), Catholic (24%), or Mormon (3%). Those numbers remained pretty much consistent through 1979 when there was a slight, but noticeable drop. In that year, those who identified as "Christian" dipped to 88%. While still a significant majority, it marked the first time the percentage dipped under 90%.

Since then, despite fluctuations, the overall trend has been generally downward. Today that number in barely 48%. Those who answered in the affirmative when asked if they were a "born again" or Evangelical Christian was just 36%. In 2018, 68% of those who identified as belonging to an organized religion said they hadn't attended a religious service within the last seven days. While 72% said that religion was generally important, only 33% admitted to having attended a religious service within the last month. When asked if they thought religion (regardless of their denomination) could help provide a solution to today's problems, only 46% said yes. 46% also said that organized religion had "to much" influence, however, 54% thought that organized religion should have more influence.

When it came to confidence in organized religion, 38% said they did while 33% said they had only a "some" confidence in organized religion and 29% had little or no confidence. Another interesting response was on the bible itself. When asked if they thought the bible was literal word of God, just 24% agreed while 47% said it was just the "inspired" word of God. The balance either thought it was myths, fables, or legends. As an aside, 87% said they believed in a god or higher power.

For those who identified as belonging to an organized faith, but didn't attend services on a regular basis, 44% said they preferred to worship on their own (and additional 21% said that was a contributing factor). 61% said they were turned off by organized religion, while 65% said they weren't quite as religious as they once were. The least most cited reason for not attending was not feeling welcome. 65% said that wasn't a factor and 55% said being asked for money wasn't a big deal either.

In terms of religion by region, the Midwest is 73% Christian (the majority is Evangelical Protestant at 26% followed closely by Catholic with 21%. Mainline Protestant was 19%). However, 22% identify as "none". Out West, 64% identified as Christian (Catholic was the slight majority with 23% while Evangelical Protestant was 22% while Mainline Protestants was only 11%). Nevertheless, 28% opted for "none". In the Northeast, 65% said they were Christian (Catholics were a clear majority with 30%. Mainline Protestants were 15% while Evangelicals were 13%). Interestingly, the "none" were 25%. . Nationally, other religions, such as Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, or Muslim all tended to 4% or under. In most cases, they were around 1%.

Lastly, the South, which has traditionally been seen as highly religious and conservative; home of the "Bible belt". Here, 76% identified as Christian (34% as Evangelical Protestants, 15% Catholic, and 14% Mainline Protestant), and yet the "none" still polled 19%. The "belt buckle" of the Bible belt, Kentucky, showed 76% Christian. 49% were Evangelical with 11% Mainline Protestant, and 10% Catholic. Non-Christian religions totaled just 2% in the Bluegrass State. However, the "none" had a remarkable 22% showing. So, what's happening?

From practically its beginning, Christianity has been essentially a European religion despite having partial roots in the Middle East. However, that appears to be changing, and rapidly. Starting from about 1991 to 2014, white Protestants, which has made up the majority of Christians in America since its founding, have been on a steep decline. During the period mention, white Protestant churches have declined by one third, and will continue to accelerate downward as white America declines in population.

As a result, studies show that most congregations now have under 100 members with hundreds of churches being either forced to merge or simply closing. The worse hit are the Mainline churches such as a Methodists, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Catholic, and Presbyterian as well as Evangelical churches such as Baptist, Pentecostal and others. However, not all churches are in decline.

Those which are actually growing are the traditional Roman Catholic and Assemblies of God to name just two. However, a few others--both Mainline and Evangelical--are showing signs of life. The growth has been coming almost exclusively from recent immigrants, especially Hispanics and from Africa. In fact, 71% of the growth in traditional Roman Catholic congregations has been from Hispanics. Further, the cultural center of Catholicism in the US is shifting from the Northwest to the South along with this change. In addition, multiracial churches, once almost unheard of, are increasingly the "new normal" across the board.

Globally, Christianity continues to be the world's largest religion. It's greatest area of growth has been primarily in Africa, followed by Asia. However, it should be pointed that studies have indicated that the Americanized version of Christianity overseas is viewed with the most suspension and has seen the least success in sustained growth. Some blame this on the so-called "Trump Effect", that is, the "America First" or "Pax Americana" resulting from Trump's alleged populist nationalism. Those denominations which promote a more "liberal" or inclusive ideology seem to be showing the most signs of growth (this includes opposition to the concept of "American Exceptionalism").

Of course, this isn't to say that the once popular ideology of Liberation Theology, an admixture of Marxism and Evangelicalism popular among the poor in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, is making a comeback, at least not yet. Thus, globally, Christianity continues to thrive, as well as domestically, though primarily among nonwhite populations as well as churches which embrace multiracial, and thus multiculturalism along with a more liberal and modern interpretation of the scriptures which can embrace different cultures and traditions different from the longstanding Western or European version of Christianity.

So what's the long term future of religion, especially Christianity? Some might cite Islam which appears to be growing on all fronts, especially in Asia and Europe. However, that notion is deceptive. In Europe Islam is on the rise to be sure. However, the explanation is actually multi fold. First, the population of native Europeans has been on steady decline since the end of World War Two. In fact, the birthrate isn't capable of even maintaining the current population; bare one child per couple.

Meanwhile, the EU's catastrophic open door immigration policy has led to a rise of immigrants, often low skilled and largely uneducated, flooding European cities. The majority of these immigrants are from Africa and the Middle East, and most are Muslim. The birth rate among these individuals is approximately five children per family; nearly doubling or tripling every few generations. At that rate, they will easily overtake the native European population within a matter of a few decades (in many communities this has already happened).

In addition, since the end of the last war, religious attendance has also been on the decline. Combine this will the rise of Muslim immigrants, and we can see Europe's pending disaster, especially if we include the refusal of the various governments to enforce existing laws, allowing the application of Sharia, and failure to protect the local population from violence, harassment, intimidation, or enforcing acceptance of "no go" zones and changing cultural and social norms. As a, interesting side note, while the Muslim population abroad increases, the birthrate among Arab populations in their home countries are on the decline.

In Asia, it's not a matter of population replacement or a decline in religious adherence. It is, however, the result of Muslim extremism and in some case (such as China), a history of general religious suppression which has been the main cause. This is especially true when other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism, have been officially prohibited. In other cases, it has been a reluctance of the various governments to respond to the increased religious and cultural violence such as in India, Nepal, or the Philippines.

Lastly, there has been a fear by more religiously tolerant Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or Syria, to counter the violence out of fear of sparking a more direct conflict with extremist (much like trying to appease a bully). The result is that certain minorities such as the Kurds, the Yazidis, and Assyrian Christians are sacrificed and face slavery and genocide.

Finally, we need to address the "none" I mentioned earlier. The "none" are not a single monolithic group. They are, actually, individuals who do not adhere to a particular religion, aka secular. Some are agnostic while others are atheists, while others are pagan, Wiccans, Humanists, and so forth. It's interesting to note that the single largest group are, in fact, those who identify as secular. What's more is that secularism is the world's fastest growing religious demographic. Even Islam is quickly losing the war against secularism, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, and even paganism which a few years ago was seen as the fastest growing religion in the world.

In Saudi Arabia, an estimated 24% are privately non-believers. In Lebanon it's 37%. Ironically, one explanation has been a direct result of the increase in Islamic extremism. It should be pointed out that secularism too can be just as extreme and intolerant as Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, especially when it comes to forcing people, especially children, into situations where they have to accept certain lifestyles or prohibits them from their own religious or social expression (case in point, requiring children to attend LGBTQ programs or fining people for not using the "correct" pronouns). Neither form of extremism is acceptable.

So, do we still trust in God? The answer is a qualified yes. Americans are still a generally religious bunch. However, our long held notion of religion is changing. It's no longer a mono-racial institution. It is increasingly comprised of individuals who weren't born in America and whose native language isn't English. Most are Hispanic, African, or even Asian. We also have a broader diversity of religions than ever before, especially among Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, as well as nontraditional belief systems such as paganism and Wicca. It's also increasingly more socially liberal than it once was.

In addition, Americans, as well as the world, has increasingly become secular. It's not that they reject God (or a higher power) so much as they reject organized religion with its inflexible dogma. It's also that they see both the good and bad in all religious systems, especially its intolerance of others. However, as stated earlier, it too has its extremist who attempt to push their beliefs on others including the acceptance of specific lifestyles, behaviors, and/or prohibit others from the practice of their beliefs which must be curtailed. We have to remember that in this interconnected world, that each must be accorded the right to their own religious expressions without interfering with the expression of others so called as no one is harmed in the process.




Gallup Poll: Religion


Pew Research: Religious Landscape Study



Where is Christianity headed? The View from 2019



The Rise of Humanism


The World's New Major Religion: No Religion

O Jerusalem! Will There Be Fallout From Trump's Jerusalem Decision?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills prophets and stones those who are sent to it. How often I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23: 37). Barely a few hours after President Donald Trump made his historic announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's political capital (it was already seen as its religious capital, and is viewed as one of the most important holy sites by not just Jews, but Christians and Muslims), that the stones of intolerance were gathered up and the winds of fanned the flames of hatred between the three Abrahamic religions. In fact, there are still Arab nations which refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Israel itself, let alone Jerusalem being its capital. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, his decision, or the Middle East in general, "The Donald" has set in motion a chain events which will radically affect not just Israel, or America, or even the Middle East. It will affect the world. The only real question is whether or not events can be contained and directed toward a final peaceful understanding among all those involved, or if the global power keg everyone has been trying to avoid since the creation of modern Israel in 1948 has finally been lit.

Jerusalem was once called the "Navel of the World" and the "Center of Creation". It is sacred to all three of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For Israel, it was the hilltop fortress conquered by its perhaps their greatest leader (other than Moses of course), the mythical King David, who refounded as the capitol of his Kingdom; the "City of David". It was also home to the Ark of the Covenant which contained the first Ten of the Commandments as written down by Moses; housed over time in two great temple complexes (the first was destroyed by the Assyrian King, Nebuchadnezzar II); the second one was destroyed by the Romans following another attempt to revolt against the authority of Rome, with its people either killed, enslaved, or scattered to the winds. Before the Romans, there was a hodgepodge of local groups who fought for control of the hilltop fortress, the Canaanites, Philistines, Egyptians, Persians, then the empires of Hittites, Assyrians, and Babylonians. Then came the Greeks led by the "Two Horned God", Alexander the Great, then at last, came the Romans.

For the Christians, it was the birthplace of their religion. It was where Jesus tried and crucified for treason and inciting insurrection against the authority of Rome. It was also where, according to the Book of Acts, where he was "resurrected" and ascended into Heaven. Jerusalem was the center of early Judeo-Christian leadership under Jesus' brother James and the surviving disciples. It remained central to the development of Christianity and after the "Great Schism" of 1054 which divided Christendom into Western or Roman Christianity based in Rome and Eastern Christianity based in Constantinople (now Istanbul) , where it remained a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church and part of the Byzantine Empire, also called the Eastern Roman Empire.

For Muslims, Jerusalem is their third most holy city, behind Mecca and Medina. According to the Koran, it's prophet, Muhammad, set off for a "far away land" during his "Night Journey" or "Isra and Mi'raj" and ascended into Heaven on the back of his white mare, Buraq. While Jerusalem isn't specifically named nor is the location of this "Place of Prostration The Farthest", a collection of writings called the "hadith" which describes words used or actions taken by Muhammad or his habits and mannerisms.

The hadith is based on oral stories about the life of Muhammad, identifies "The Farthest" as possibly Jerusalem. In Islamic law, the hadith is second to the Koran in authority. Muslim military, political, and religious leader therefore undertook what they believed to be a divine mission to capture the city, which it did in 638 CE. Sixty years later, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was built, along with the Dome of the Rock shrine; the supposed site where Buraq left its hoof marks in a rock as it pushed off to Heaven with Muhammad on its back (it is also believed that the Patriarch Abraham was to sacrifice his son Isaac on the same rock. Also some of the patriarchs, their wives and children are believed to be buried somewhere below in the numerous tunnels and niches). Perhaps the central contention with the Mosque is that it was also located on the site where the Great Temple had been located before being leveled by the Romans centuries before.

Since then, and the building of the Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem has been the scene of some of the bloodiest battles in the Middle East, between Christian Crusaders like the Knights Templars and the Knight Hospitallers, and numerous Muslim military leaders and Sultans. In time, it came under the control of the Ottoman Empire, where it remained until the end of World War I when the region of what was then known as Palestine was ceded to the British Empire. In 1917, a document called the "Balfour Declaration" was published which agreed, in theory, with the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (the publication was actually a letter from British Foreign Secretary Lord Alfred Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild ). The Declaration, inspired hope among the various Zionist organizations, not to mention increased Jewish support in its war efforts, especially against the Ottoman Empire, an ally of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

After being ceded to Great Britain following World War I, Jewish immigration increased, but only slightly. The Arab population living in Palestine and in Jerusalem in particular, wasn't thrilled about more Jews moving in or the possibility of a Jewish State. It was World War II which would change everything. As just about everyone knows, the Nazis spent an inordinate amount of time rounding up Gypsies, Slavs, and Jews, first for the purpose of removing them from German held territories (the idea at the time was to deport them to one of their old colonies held by either England or France, or possibly ever Sri Lanka). When that idea fizzled, it was decided that a "Final Solution" was needed. As a result, approximately six million Jews were systematically murdered (along with tens of thousands of Slavs and Gypsies). By the end of the war and the revelation of the Holocaust to the world, there was at least a catalyst for the establishment of a Jewish Homeland. I guess one could argue that the Nazis made Israel possible. Although the British were hesitant due to Arab resistance, they were compelled to move forward when UN Resolution 181 was passed in 1947. Thus, in May of 1948, the Jewish State of Israel came into being, and was immediately attacked by a coalition of Arab nations.

While the State withstood the attack and though it had secured West Jerusalem, it was far from over. In 1956, Israel was again attacked and was able to repulse the Arab League as it was called. in 1967, Israel, upon learning of plans for another sneak attack, launched a preemptive war which came to be known as "The Six Days War". It was during this war, that the Israeli army under the leadership of Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, and Commander Uzi Narkiss captured East Jerusalem and the Old City. Israel was again attacked in 1973, in what was known as the Yom Kippur War, which was the last major Arab offensive. Since then, Israel has faced numerous attacks by terrorists groups, from within and outside its borders. Now, let's take a look at some important numbers and additional history in order to understand the full picture.

Christianity is the world' s largest religion (includes Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, various smaller sects as well as those who self-identify as such) with 33%. Islam has the second largest population of adherents with 21% (regardless of sects). Third largest are those who don't identity with any organized religion. This includes agnostics, Humanists, theists, atheists, and those who check the "none of the above" box. Hinduism is next with 14% of the world's population. The rest, neo-pagan/Wiccan, Buddhism, Spiritualism, indigenous, and so on are all roughly 6% each. Lastly, we come to Judaism which has a whopping 0.22% adherents (which includes Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and those who identify as Jewish but aren't active). By comparison, that's 14 million Jews worldwide as opposed to 2.1 billion Christians, Islam has 1.5 billion. Secular/Nonreligious make up 1.1 billion. Hinduism has 900 million while Buddhism has 376 million, while little ole Israel has just 14 million globally.

That should give you some idea as to what I mean when I say this seemingly simple recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capitol could have global implications. We have to keep in mind while the US has been battling Islamic extremism since November of 1979 and the attack on the US Embassy in Tehran and taking of 60 American hostages, Israel has been battling them since 1948 (the US hostages weren't freed until 444 days later, on January 21, 1981, just hours after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President), but that's not all. We need to also bear in mind that extremist Islam has also been on a campaign of destruction against the adherents of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism. Taoism and Confucianism, Zoroastrianism (perhaps the oldest continuing mono-theism religion in the world) and other smaller religions.

Since the advent of ISIS/ISIL/DESH, Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, and other splinter groups of religious zealots, there has been an ongoing genocide in the Middle East against various groups like the Kurds, Yazidis, but more notably, against Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East, with little or no media coverage and virtually no worldwide condemnation. Which hard numbers are often difficult to come by, it's estimated that more than 700,000 of the regions 1.1 million Christians have been forced to flee from ISIS. Thousands of Christians has been beheaded, burned, impaled, flailed, crucified, hanged, shot, or stoned to death. Yazidis and Kurds captured have face much the same situation, also in the hundreds if not thousands. Meanwhile, young girls, regardless of the ethnic group of religion, have been sold as sex slaves and/or ordinary menial labor throughout the Muslim World, from Africa to Asia.

Meanwhile, despite the ongoing genocide, approximately 1% to 2% have been able to flee the danger and make it safely to Europe due to border restrictions by Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon. The overwhelming number of migrants are Muslim. Those who do manage to make the journey are put in refugee camps which are populated by the very same groups which had previously persecuted them. Many have complained to authorities about beatings, rapes, robberies, or murders with little done to help them. In 2010 and before, 99% of new Middle East refugees admitted to the US were Muslim. Barely 1% are Christian. The rest were left to do the best they could to survive; many seeking safety with the Kurds and Yazidis. Since 2016, that number has substantially improved, though Christian immigrants remain a minority among the refugees. There has also been the clashes between to the two opposing sects of Islam, Shiite and Sunni with thousands murdered on both sides (ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other similar terrorist groups are predominately Sunni).

Now that you have a little background of what's admittedly a complicated history, let's address the issue of Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and what that might possibly mean. Trump's action was jeered not just by Palestinians, but by Arab and non-Arab leaders worldwide, including Pope Francis, who said that the decision would cause "irreparable harm" to the city and the Holy Land. While Israel has intended to make Jerusalem its capital since its inception in 1948, international pressure has forced Israel from making a formal declaration and other key nations have insisted that they could not recognize Jerusalem as its capital in the name of peace. Indeed, the fate of Jerusalem has been at the center of every peace conference in the Middle East since 1948. Several of our allies quietly agreed and withheld their public praise. Christian evangelical leaders mostly applauded the decision, while others thought it would destabilized the region, including Elizabeth Eaton, the presiding bishop for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the largest Lutheran synod in America. Ms. Eaton said that she thought the decision would likely lead to a "high probability of leading to violence and bloodshed" and set back any chances for peace. Many independent Christian churches in Jerusalem sent Trump a joint letter expressing the same sentiments. Muslim-Americans were quite unhappy to say the least. Leaders of Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia immediately expressed deep concerns and thought the decision would derail any real chance of peace in the region.

In my opinion, Trump has made a serious strategic mistake with respect to his Middle East policy (such as it is). Muslim moderates have been slowing growing a spine and starting to speak out. ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists are on the ropes (largely due to Russia's efforts--thank you), a reformist effort is under way in Saudi Arabia by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, warming relations with Jordan, a building stability in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq, and something approaching dialogue with Iran, not to mention the deteriorating situation in Europe amid escalating violence, Trump's action might be the one thing that will unite the Muslim cause across nationalistic or religious divides. It may be the one thing which breaths life back into the largely defeated terrorist organizations. Yes, it was a nice gesture of friendship with Israel. They know we have their backs. However, unless this decision is reversed, we might need to start worrying about our backs.



Report: ISIS Has Crucified, Tortured Thousands of Christians in Iraq, Syria


The New Exodus: Christians Flee ISIS in Middle East

Fact Check: Trump's Tweets on Christians, ISIS And Vetting Miss The Bigger Picture


Religious Leader Divided Over Trump's Jerusalem Decision

Is It More Than London Bridge That's Falling Down?

On June 5th of 2017, the normal British "stiff upper lip" was once more put to the test. The Brits has seen their fair share of challenges, be it economic, military such as the Falkland's , Hitler's Blitz, and joining in with the American Allies in the Middle East; extending a cultural, economic, and military unlike any history. However, this time it was very personal, not just because it was a Brit who aimed their hatred at fellow Brits, but because this was in many way a reflection of Empire, but more on that in a moment. What happened on June 5th, was an act of spite, religious and social hatred, and shear cowardice as suicide attacks often are (I prefer to call them what they are, homicide attack since their sole is mass murder of innocent unaware and unarmed victims, which is also why I refer to them as acts of cowardice, but I suppose that's just semantics on my part). On that Saturday, a stolen van mowed down bystanders walking along the famous bridge way until it crashed into the cast iron railing. At that moment, three Middle Eastern men jumped out and proceeded to attack anyone and everyone they could with knives, especially those either entering or existing nearby restaurants and bars. Witnesses said individuals along the way ran---yelling at others to run too---or they fought back with bottles, trashcans, and even chairs. ISIS immediately took credit for the attacked and praised the murders.

When it was over, the three murders were dead; shot to death by London Transit Authority at the nearby Bourgh Market, which is just a few short blocks away from London Bridge. Meanwhile, reports came in of additional stabbing attacks several blocks away at Vauxhall. They were found to be wearing fake suicide vest; possibly to be used as a ruse should the opportunity to take hostages arose. Metropolitan Police responded that while there were stabbing attacks, they didn't think they were related, at least not directly, with the mayhem on London Bridge. British PM, Theresa May called the incident a "terrible accident". Indeed it was Ms. May, but hardly is a terrorist attack merely an "accident" (ironically, Ms. May cut 20,000 police officer positions during her tenure as Home Secretary). There have already been calls by Labour Party to reexamine the reduction in London's police officers and an immediate restoration of at least 10,000 of those posts in light of recent events. Can anyone say "pen gate closed and pigs already out"?

Two of the mass murders were identified as Rachid Redouance and Khuran Shazad Butt (such an appropriate last name for a terrorist, but I digress). Butt was also known as Adbul Zaitan. Redouance, aka Rachid Elkhdar who claimed to be Moroccan and Libyan , was 30 years old. Butt, age 27, was a British citizen of Pakistani birth was a former employee of the Transit Authority and likely had knowledge of security procedures. He was also a customer service assistant trainee for the London Underground (London's famed subway system). Thus far, no information has been made public about the third terrorist. However, it should be noted that 130 Imams---Muslim religious leaders and religious heads of mosques---refused to accept the bodies for burial.

MI5, Britain's famous counter intelligence agency said they were familiar with Butt, as was Interpol most likely. He had recently appeared in a documentary made for the BBC regarding increasing militancy among British Muslims. Ironically, Butt stated in the documentary that an attack using a stolen van followed by an attack of some sort would be an ideal attack. A public warning no one heeded? Butt had previously been asked to leave several local mosques due to his radical tendencies. He was also associated with the notorious radical Muslim terrorist group al-Muhajiroun. For those not familiar with this rabid pact or its leader, Anjem Choudary, they were responsible for the attack and public beheading of an off duty British soldier just outside of his Barracks gate in southeast London in 2013. This is also the same group which attacked and beheaded a older woman in London. Of far more importance is those attacked. 48 individuals were injured; some quite seriously, including a Transit Authority police officer. Sadly, seven individuals lost their lives. Of note, the attack is reminiscent of another similar attack in March when 52 year old British national, Khalid Masood, rammed bystanders walking along Westminster Bridge and then stabbed a police officer to death. A total of five people died in that attack. Meanwhile, 22 people were murdered in a bombing in Manchester England at the concert of the vocally anti-American/pro-"Immigrant" pop singer Ariane Grande in May.

London, which historically has had a very low crime rate and where the "Bobbies" as the local police officers are affectionately called, typically carry no firearms, has seen that all change in recent years as Muslim militancy has dramatically increased along with demands for Sharia or Islamic law, to be implemented everywhere and to supersede British law. There are areas through not just London, but throughout all of England, including Manchester, York, Liverpool, which are for all intents and purposes, Sharia enforced "no go zones" for ordinary citizens, including the police. These areas even have their own roving religious enforcement patrols and courts, where anyone---Muslim or not---who mistakenly walks through, can be detained, arrested, and fined! Women must be "properly" covered and accompanied, and pets are strictly "verboten"! Now there are demands insisting that this be applied throughout all of the country.

Despite the appearance of a laid back police force, London's police force are highly trained and diverse, which gives them an advantage among its extremely ethnically varied population. In addition, London has one of the most intense surveillance systems of any city in the world, with cameras practically everywhere (called "CCTV" or Closed Circuit TV. and an outstanding response time for first responders. With the recent attacks, Londoners are also seeing British soldiers being added to mix as searches and high security concerns continue, especially given the Islam's most sacred week known as Ramadan is underway (one theory for the recent mass murders has been to attack "infidels" seen as ignoring the holidays' religious dietary prohibitions such as drinking, smoking, and of course, the obligatory non-eating of pork).

So, what is London, and indeed England to do about this? The English put great value in the free speech and free expression. Indeed, going to Hyde Park to hear people pontificate about whatever is on their minds while literally standing on their soap boxes, is a form of entertainment for the locals as much as it is for the tourists. However, like in America or other countries which have a democratic tradition, there is a fine line between "free speech" and "freedom of expression" and inciting violence (one of the other key demands of these Islamic extremists is to ban democracy across the board. That's right. Ending freedoms as we know them and greatly restricting any form of non-compliant individuality, and mandatory adoption of Sharia law. That means just what it sounds like---head to toe covering for women. Oh, ladies, no unescorted schlepping around, no education, no working, no voting (or other rights), or driving. No or very limited women participation in sports. No sex outside marriage (that will get you beaten or murdered---"honor killing" and marriages are pre-arranged. No music---rock, rap, country, hip-hop, or pop. Zippo. No gay rights. Gays will be killed on sight. No smoking. No drugs of any sort. No booze or bars at all. No pictures. No flying the US flag, statues of any sort, museum, or sing the National Anthem. No public demonstration of any other religion---or non-religion. Oh yeah, pedophilia is allowed and so will slavery---for girls. Sound fun?). So, at what point does this end without violating rights? Can only the rights of a few be violated, but if so, what about their right to practice their religion as they've done since the 10th Century?

Part of the issue, as I alluded to in the beginning of this article, is the fact that the British Empire once ruled over this area---India, Egypt, Pakistan, Palestine (before 1948), Afghanistan, parts of Africa and Southeast Asia; all which have large Muslim populations among other religions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism). As such, Britain has allowed its former colonies to emigrate to the "Mother Country" (the Indians and rich and well educated Arab nations took to this readily, but of late, so have Muslims from much poorer and largely unskilled countries). In addition, other former empire nations such as France and Holland has as well with similar results. As an aside, 44% of London's population is now comprised of non-ethnic English; mostly black and other ethnic minorities, compared with just 21% in 2001; 38% of England's Muslims live in London (Islam makes up approximately 13% of England's overall population).

What's worse is that the European Union---the EU---which is dominated by Germany and Ms. Merkel---have insisted on a "open door" policy when it comes to immigrants, which is in line with the United Nations immigration mandate. However, this mandate is routinely violated since it puts restrictions on who is an "immigrant" and under what conditions what may leave their home county and how far they can travel (as an aside, Ms. Merkel has lead the way in ignoring these restrictions and demanded that other countries do likewiseThe result has been the predictable decline of European economic stability and the rise in violent crime). London, as well as the rest of England and Europe will continue to see more terrorist attacks, which will become bloodier and more militant outbreaks, including rapes, murders, and harassment amid demands to "conform or else". So, do these otherwise democratic, nations abandon their Western ideals? We know from history that appeasement has never worked. Does Europe want to go from a very advanced and progressive cultural and political system to a theocratic political system stuck in 10th Century? On the other hand, it has to step back to its own version of repressive neo-fascist police state (much like America is now doing).

Visions of "Animal Farm" and "1984" come to mind either way we in the West go (of course, the East, including China, Australia, the Philippines, Latin America, and even Russia are facing or will be shortly facing the same choices). India has had a long feud between Hindus and Buddhists against extremist Islam, as has the Buddhist, Confucianism, Taoist, and "officially" secular Communist China. America too, which is predominately Christian with large pockets of Judaism, Wicca, secularism, and the other religions previously mentioned. When does "accommodation" and "cultural outreach" or "inclusion" cross the line to "required observance" and "mandatory". In fact, we are already seeing this in the US, and often without the parent's permission or even knowledge. But these are not fantasies. In fact, they are daily realities for millions, like in parts Syria, Egypt and Iraq where Coptic Christians, Yazidis, and Kurdish are beaten or murdered by the hundreds and their young girls are forced into sexual slavery; churches are destroyed, girls are doused with acid for going to school.

Aldous Huxley wrote a book back in 1932 that I thoroughly enjoyed, "Brave New World". Well, I'm not so sure about the "brave" part, but it is certainly it's a new world; a very scary new world (perhaps we should reconsider Frank Herbert's "Dune" series). Much of blame can be placed on us; waging wars for "fun and profit", and all over greed for more oil, more gas, more access to strategic ports, and playing a game of geopolitics against past masters; peoples who've been playing this game for thousands of years, all the way back to Samara, Sumner, and Babylon. In doing so, we've lost our democratic republic to a corporate oligarchy; a growing neo-fascist surveillance state. It's time we get off this roller coaster while we can. Otherwise, I'm don't we're going to like the ending very much.


London Bridge attack timeline as it happened and live reaction.

London Bridge attack: 2 of the 3 killers identified

London attack: What we know about the victims.

Seconds from Slaughter: London Bridge attack

London's population by ethnicity