Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

September 27, 2014
A “Responsibility To Protect” Mercenaries?

From a recent Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing on Iraq and Syria picked up by Micah Zenko:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): I take it from your answer that we are now recruiting these young men to go and fight in Syria against ISIL, but if they’re attacked by Bashar Assad, we’re not gonna help them?

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL: They will defend themselves, Senator.

MCCAIN: Will we help them against Assad’s air…

HAGEL: We will help them and we will support them, as we have trained them.

MCCAIN: How will we help them—will we repel Bashar Assad’s air assets that will be attacking them?

HAGEL: Any attack on those that we have trained and who are supporting us, we will help ‘em.

The Pentagon confirmed to Zenko that Hagel meant what he said.

But what does this really mean? One hires a bunch of young fanatics, trains them to kill and sends them to fight some foreign government. Then, when that foreign government dares to defend itself against the mercenary goons, one has a "Responsibility To Protect" them? What a sorry illegal excuse for waging a war of aggression.

There is more of such nonsense coming up again. New talk of a "no-fly zone" as the U.S. is somehow the only one allowed to bomb civilians in Iraq and Syria and also new talk of some kind of buffer zone along the Turkish border.

I don't believe that any of these things will happen. Syria and its allies do have the means to block any legal justification for such issues and they have the means to deter against their implementation.

The policy the Obama administration is trying to implement now is too contradictory and not sustainable. It wants to destroy the ideological fighters of the Islamic State with the support of the states, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are based on the same ideology the IS fighters espouse and in which significant parts of the populations support the Islamic State. Obama wants recruit Turkey while the Islamic State is fighting against the Kurd paramilitaries from the PKK/YPK. Turkey has for decades fought against the PKK and the struggle has cost tens of thousands of death. It is also supportive of the Islamic State and similar movements in Syria.

The U.S. wants to bomb the IS in support of the "moderate rebels" who are protesting against such bombing:

The protesters singled out the reported deaths of a dozen or so civilians in the town of Kafr Daryan in northern Idlib province, where a U.S. cruise missile allegedly struck a building that housed displaced people near a base belonging to al Qaida’s Nusra Front.

These "moderate rebels" will now likely put themselves under the command of the Islamic State.

This policy and the lunatic alliances it is based on will break apart. Has there ever been a coalition with such discrepancies that has held throughout the ups and downs of a war? I do not know where, when and how the breaking up will occur but such a mess is simply not sustainable.

That is why I believe that Hagel's "R2P for mercenaries" is just nonsense and something that will never be implemented.

Posted by b on September 27, 2014 at 15:34 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Demian
I thought you didnt respond to “Anonymous” 🙂
But yes I think people that believe empire die just like that are naive. One must be realistic.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 29 2014 8:43 utc | 101

@Anonymous #101:
I guess you’re referring to a comment I made complaining about the high percentage of posters going by the designation of “Anonynomous” over at the Saker. I do find that infuriating, and I can’t understand why the Saker allows people to make posts without choosing a name.
You have a distinct voice, so I don’t mind your going by the name of “Anonymous” (although I do think you could have chosen a better name). When somebody else (another poor choice for a name!), a few weeks ago, started using your name, I attacked him for doing that.
As for your substantive point, I have been guilty of expecting the death of the Empire to be imminent for decades. I believe I have become less breathless in that respect now, mainly because I can use Russian commentators as a main point of reference, whereas up until the Ukraine crisis, I had pretty much given up on Russia, so I had not paid attention to what was going on there. For a very long time, my hope laid in Germany, but that ended a few years ago.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 29 2014 9:14 utc | 102

Posted by: Demian | Sep 29, 2014 3:54:38 AM | 96
I don’t think Saudi Arabia is the guilty party. It started as a Western Arab spring Muslim Brotherhood regime change revolution – remember?
Saudi Arabia does not have that many options. I think they try to work with the Egyptian model now – get the Syrian army (which is largely Sunni) minus Assad. Minus Assad has to be negotiated. That is why US airstrikes now work for the Syrian army.
IS has effectively drawn the US in. That is – probably – a recruiting tool that will work in the Gulf, too. There is the – very curious – US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia as a model. All of Iraq – Shiite or Sunni – has stated that they do not want US soldiers on the ground – except for Kurdistan I suppose.
It is no win for the US and its politicians. It is bound to go from bad to worse

Posted by: somebody | Sep 29 2014 9:14 utc | 103

Kurdish media – Rudaw interview with Syrian minister

Asked about the five Arab countries that supported US fighters or joined in the first raids over Syria, Haidar said his government did not have a problem with that.
“We are not against either the Saudis or the Turks or Qataris or Jordanians, for that matter, to join the attacks on IS. These countries were the reason the IS was formed originally. If they now join the attacks on IS, then it’s a good thing.”

Posted by: somebody | Sep 29 2014 9:40 utc | 104

@somebody #102:
I believe Saudi Arabia is a guilty party. The effort to destabilize Syria might have started as the Arab Spring/US orchestrated color revolution, but when that switched to a military conflict, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, and Turkey were at least as responsible for that as the US, Britain, and Israel. Both the Saudi Arabian “royals” and Erdogan hate Assad more than the US or Israel do, because Assad is the last representative of a secular altertnative for an Arab/Muslim country.
As for Egypt, I think that the (entirely justified) suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood there shows that Egypt is now following the Syrian model more than it is following the Saudi Arabian model. (Under Erdogan, Turkey has taken the (doomed) Islamist route. It remains to be seen whether the Turkish Islamists will be able to consolidate their power, or whether there will be some kind of “counter-revoluton”, or a protracted period of instability. When Turkey was created as the rump of the Ottomon empire, the idea was that it would be a secular state, so it is by no means clear that the current attempt to turn it into a theocracy will be succesful.)
To address your comment, “It is no win for the US and its politicians. It is bound to go from bad to worse.” I agree. I can understand what the US is doing in the Ukraine: the objective is to create problems for Russia and, secondly, the EU. But the simultaneous supporting of Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Syria while also bombing them can lead to unintended consequences. Instability of the former Ukraine is in the US’s strategic interests, but instability in Iraq and Syria may harm the US’s main allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I think I can figure out the policy of the US regarding the former Ukraine, but I can’t detect a coherent US policy regarding IS.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 29 2014 9:48 utc | 105

104) Agree. Ukraine was little cost to the US (except Victoria Nuland’s famous 5 billion), Iraq/Syria is huge cost.
I think the US realize that the Saudi Wahhabi /monarchy / dictatorship model will not win them continued hegemony in the Middle East, the Iraq/Afghanistan war Shiite strategy was the first – failed – attempt to switch, the Iranian color revolution and Turkey/Qatar/Muslim Brotherhood/color revolutions the second – failed – attempt.
They are now stuck with a – wary, hostile – Saudi Arabia or manage a neutral pacification role with Russia/China. It looks like they try the latter which would be very good news.
The US need Russia for any meaningful sanctions pressure on Iran – they already worsened their position by sanctioning Russia, too.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 29 2014 10:08 utc | 106

86
How about b declares Zbigniew Brzezinski Day, a man so at the center of PNAC and Yinon Plan before there even was a PNAC and Yinon Plan, that his last name is in every Spell Check! And on this Day, some slow news watch day, everyone on MoA post everything they can find about the man, and I mean, really DIG! And as part of their post, every poster has to prognosticate what ZB is going to do or say next.
How about b declares John Bolten Day, a man … well, sort of a man…whose last name is ALSO in every Spell Check, and now I’ve got to go check Henry Kissainaergr.e.r YUPPP!!!!

Posted by: ChipNikh | Sep 29 2014 11:37 utc | 107

Oui #99
@Don Bacon | Sep 28, 2014 8:06:48 PM | 75 – Be careful of the propagandist you quote
Save your cautions for somebody else, Oui. They don’t work on me.
I know all about O’Bagy, and her relationship to MscCain, and Kagan and I also know she spoke the truth in the quote I used.
So go fish.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 29 2014 13:19 utc | 108

@95: Naive ? I don’t think so.
Look at what happened with the Soviet Union. In the 1980s everyone thought the Soviet Union would last for many years to come. Yet, in 1991 the Soviet Union was already dissolved.
The Soviet Union went down not because of a military defeat but as a result of large financial problems. It simply couldn’t afford to continue to spend billions & billions on all kinds of weapons and “national security” anymore.
Now replace the words “Soviet Union” with “USA” and one has a good prediction of what’s going to happen in the (near) future.
Look at what happened with the first truly worldwide Spainish Empire in the 16th/17th century. Spain defaulted on its debts eight times in the 16th/17th century. Look at the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire. All were drowning in debt and that lead to their demise.
If the US T-bond market goes down “in flames” then the PETRODOLLAR is “toast” and with it the USA.
I therefore continue to predict/think that the US Empire is going to die as a result of a financial “heartattack”. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see the USA break up in parts as well.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 29 2014 14:12 utc | 109

Back on topic, Obama’s strategy is to use a non-existent force to fight on two fronts, against Syria and Isis. How can that possibly work? It’s idiotic.
The US can’t even come up with a spokesman for this ghost force, It has to use Tony Blinken at the White House.
What ever happened to the old crew?
-General Selim Idris
-Abdelqader Saleh, Tawheed brigade
-Colonel Riad al-Asaad, FSA
-Col. Abdeljabbar Akidi
-General Mustafa Al Shaikh, chief of FSA Military Council
-the defecting Tlass family — Mustafa, Manaf, Firas, Ahmed
-many others
All gone.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 29 2014 14:14 utc | 110

“…And that kind of extremism, unfortunately, means that we’re going to see for some time the possibility that in a whole bunch of different countries, radical groups may spring up — particularly in countries that are still relatively fragile where you had sectarian tensions, where you don’t have a strong state security apparatus.
And that’s why what we have to do is, rather than play whack-a-mole and send U.S. troops wherever this occurs, we have to build strong partnerships,” Obama told “60 Minutes.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/28/politics/obama-isis-congress/index.html?c=&page=2
Ok, Obama admits that a country requires a robust and strong state security apparatus to fend off the development of jihadists groups such as ISIL, so tell me why the US does not want to let Assad combat ISIL within its own borders? Others at moa and myself have mentioned here several times that the most reasonable tactic to combat ISIL in Syria is to allow Assad’s forces unfettered mobility to deal with it.
Assad’s forces have the most at stake and they will probably work diligently to keep civilian casualties and infrastructure damage to as few and as little possible. The Obama administration must come to grips with this, especially if they don’t intend to put mass American boots on the ground. They must not be forced into a military calculus in Syria which will more than likely spin out of control and be disasterous for the US military and Syria itself.
The Obama administration can do a backdoor deal with Assad’s government. The US will bomb retreating or advancing ISIL non civilian positions from the air and let the Syrian military handle the surgical door to door rooting out of ISIL from the cities. Iraq, Iran and Syria are all business partners and would probably provide the boots on the ground to defeat ISIL in the quickest amount of time. The US can then use its diplomatic arm to ensure that it is in the best interests of the Middle East, northern Africa and central Asia that Assad must remain in power. In my opinion, the US would get global support for this means of combating and eliminating ISIL in Syria.

Posted by: really | Sep 29 2014 14:15 utc | 111

@Don Bacon | Sep 29, 2014 9:19:07 AM | 107
???? 🙁

Posted by: Oui | Sep 29 2014 14:26 utc | 112

Willy2
Comparing soviet with western empire? Really? Ok so what are the similarities?
So by 31th of december the western empire will be no more?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 29 2014 14:29 utc | 113

If you liked O’Bagy, you’ll love Juan Cole. But truth is where you find it, and truth trumps everything.
Cole refers to Obama’s interview yesterday:

At one point in the interview, Obama lays out what he thinks the underlying problems are:
“They have now created an environment in which young men are more concerned whether they’re Shiite or Sunni, rather than whether they are getting a good education or whether they are able to, you know, have a good job.

Then Cole refers to a book he’s written, differing with Obama about the jobs situation. Key paragraph:

. . .So these Syrian youth were demanding jobs, jobs that had been taken from them by carbon-spewing Americans and Chinese, and by a corrupt Neoliberalism. Only when the regime dealt with the 2011 protests by drawing up tanks and firing on peaceful protesters, and by stationing snipers on rooftops, did the protesters gradually take up arms. As the conflict turned into civil war, paramilitary and political forces often began appealing to sectarian identity as a way of mobilizing people, getting them to fight or to be afraid of the Other. . . . this growing religious extremism was fueled by the Wahhabi states of Qatar and Saudi Arabia — US allies going back to the Cold War when all were afraid of workers and the Left– which sent in money to the most puritanical of the guerrilla groups, while the secular and leftist moderates languished without much monetary support.

Now we can debate about who hired the snipers but the underlying neo-liberal world economic forces at work here are what the real debate should be about.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 29 2014 14:29 utc | 114

@112:
– I listed those similarities. Don’t you recognize those similarities with what’s happening in the US ?
– I wrote “I wouldn’t be surprised ………. “.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 29 2014 14:40 utc | 115

Correction:
– I wrote “I think …… could …… “. We’ll have to see, won’t we ? If I am wrong then I am wrong. But the trajectory of the US is down. Without a shadow of doubt.
The break down will be financially. Then Obama or the next president can’t pay the fuel bill for all those nice military toys anymore. Then all that military hardware (tanks, aircraft carriers, planes, etc.) is worth nothing more than scrap metal.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 29 2014 14:47 utc | 116

Yep, Juan can’t get any better in his “analysis” and book promotion. He loves Qatar and the MB, just like US policy under Ms Clinton. With the fall of Morsi the house of cards folded: Egypt-Hamas-Turkey-Qatar.
The Saudi-Israel-USA alliance had worked for decades prior to Bush #43 invading Iraq. In the chaos, the Saudis would need to rid themselves of the MB axis before returning their focus on Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Jordan has a tough call on domestic policy and security with Palestinians, MB and Salafists pledging allegiance to IS.
○ “Stop Wahhabi Indoctrination of Syrian Youth” (2010) by Elie Elhadj
○ Saudi Wahhabi Sheikh Calls On Iraq’s Jihadists to Kill Shiites
○ Saudi cleric calls for Muslim fatwa to take out Bashar Assad
○ Push by Saudi Clerics for an Islamic State in Al-Sham (Syria)
○ Still active, Zbigniew Brzezinski and son Mark in political network with Lee Wolosky, White Oak Plantation and CFR.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 29 2014 14:57 utc | 117

Sleepy@1,
Assad is a very bad guy
But ISIS makes everyone die
The mighty U.S.
Will handle this mess
So bombing them both will apply
The Limerick King

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 29 2014 15:08 utc | 118

Demian:

going by the designation of “Anonynomous” over at the Saker. I do find that infuriating, and I can’t understand why the Saker allows people to make posts without choosing a name.

I’ve been with this blog from the beginning. That I can remember I’ve changed my ‘handle’ 4 times. Never was an ‘Anonynomous’, but started with two letter initials, only to have someone else use them or something close. So I changed again. I’m not sure a blogger can block someone from using any ‘handle’ they want. Maybe b can answer?

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 29 2014 15:38 utc | 119

Willy2
“The break down will be financially”
But do you have any proof for what you are saying?
Or any date span?
Anything?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 29 2014 15:42 utc | 120

has everyone here seen this video ???
The Geopolitics of World War III from StormCloudsGathering’s youtube channel.

Posted by: james | Sep 29 2014 16:26 utc | 121

Obama says misread Islamic State; Qaeda warns of attacks on West
By Mariam Karouny and Jonny Hogg
BEIRUT/MURSITPINAR Turkey
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has acknowledged that U.S. intelligence underestimated the rise of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, where the head of an al Qaeda branch warned militants will attack the West in retaliation for U.S.-led air strikes.
Turkish tanks took up positions on the Syrian frontier, opposite a besieged border town where Islamic State shelling intesified and stray fire hit Turkish soil.
U.S.-led air strikes overnight hit a natural gas plant controlled by Islamic State fighters in eastern Syria, a monitoring body reported, part of an apparent campaign to disrupt one of the fighters’ main sources of income.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 29 2014 16:44 utc | 122

OT
‘Seven Ukraine troops die’ in deadliest post-truce attack
Ukrainian troops have been battling pro-Russian rebels across the east of the country
Seven Ukrainian soldiers are said to have died in a clash with pro-Russian rebels near Donetsk airport – in what would be the deadliest single incident for the military since a truce deal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29415162

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 29 2014 17:25 utc | 123

Obama went too far yesterday.
The Daily Beast, Sep 28, 2014
Why Obama Can’t Say His Spies Underestimated ISIS

Nearly eight months ago, some of President Obama’s senior intelligence officials were already warning that ISIS was on the move. In the beginning of 2014, ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah, leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq.
But in an interview that aired Sunday evening, the president told 60 Minutes that the rise of the group now proclaiming itself a caliphate in territory between Syria and Iraq caught the U.S. intelligence community off guard. Obama specifically blamed James Clapper, the current director of national intelligence: “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” he said.

Many more are ‘piling on’ Obama now and his bogus fight against ISIS.
Why would he fight an entity breaking up an ally of Iran?
And why change now?
I think he got rushed into the current mistaken policy solely because of the beheadings’ propaganda effort, and some Syrians apparently agree.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 29 2014 20:27 utc | 124

On what planet have you been living ? Never visited any financial blog ?
Never noticed that the US currently has $ 17 trillion in debt ?
In the year 2000 US federal debt was at “only” ~ $ 5 billion. In mere 8 year one G.W. Bush doubled that debt (up to ~ $ 10 trillion). Those who are aware of how the PETRODOLLAR system works knows that all those Bush’ wars helped to increase the US housing bubble.
But Obama has beaten Bush. He increased the national debt to ~ $ 17 trillion. More debt added, in 6 years than Bush added in 8 years.
US total debt doubled under the Bush administration from ~ 22 trillion up to ~ $ 57 trillion. And it didn’t decrease since 2008.
http://nypost.com/2014/02/08/thanks-to-aging-population-its-all-downhill-from-here-for-usa/

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 29 2014 21:02 utc | 125

Willy2
Debt have been going on for years, nothing new, US empire is still here.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 29 2014 21:31 utc | 126

@126: That’s what everyone thinks but I am not convinced.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 29 2014 22:28 utc | 127

Pentagon: U.S. air power alone, the general asserted, will not destroy ISIL.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 29 2014 23:06 utc | 128

@124 don bacon.. the usa making war on ISIS is just a convenient excuse for regime change.. the acceptance by the public that this is for getting rid of ISIS is a nice, but false front.. regime change is still very much on track..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 1:52 utc | 129

@ james #129
regime change is still very much on track.
Actually it isn’t.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 30 2014 2:33 utc | 130

@130 – don. well we disagree on this then.. i think this project is in the early stages.. once the bombing starts, it is only a matter of time and it develops into something bigger.. i hope you are right and i am wrong..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 3:05 utc | 131

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Mobilize-the-Washi-by-michael-payne-Bombing_Candidates_Enemies_Isis-Threats-140929-993.html

Posted by: really | Sep 30 2014 3:09 utc | 132

@ james #131
“Regime change” is not on track.
Assad has applauded the bombing of ISIS because ISIS is a Syria enemy, and because it distracts the US with a situation which can’t be successful.
stripes:
Obama’s efforts to oust Syria’s Assad pushed to back burner

WASHINGTON — By President Barack Obama’s own admission, U.S. efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad have been pushed to the back burner by a bombing campaign against Islamic State militants that could ultimately help him stay in power.
“There’s a more immediate concern that has to be dealt with,” Obama said of Assad in a broadcast interview that aired Sunday.
Although the White House continues to call for Assad’s departure and has consistently condemned his actions in a three-year civil war, diplomatic negotiations to oust him have largely stalled and Obama has shown no appetite for using military power to force him out. Even when Obama was considering strikes last year in retaliation for Assad’s chemical weapons use — a plan he ultimately rejected — officials made clear that regime change was not their goal.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 30 2014 4:29 utc | 133

@133 don – lets agree to disagree.. we can revisit this in 1 year..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 4:51 utc | 134

US plans massive military escalation in Syria and Iraq
By Patrick Martin
“There is a glaring contradiction between Obama’s claims to be fighting ISIS, and discussion of a no-fly zone, since this would be directed against the Assad regime, which controls the Syrian Air Force. ISIS has no planes, no helicopters and no aerial assets of any kind. A no-fly zone would mean scrapping the pretense of a war with ISIS and openly acknowledging the real purpose of the US intervention all along: the destruction of the Assad government and the establishment of a US puppet regime in Damascus.”
article here.

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 5:15 utc | 135

@james
Yr headline could have read: Turkey plans massive military escalation in Syria.
On your agree to disagree and 1 year check, I’m definitely in the regime change corner. Obama is a narcissist who is characterized as being unrelentless. What we have seen in Libya, Egypt, Syria, drone attacks and Ukraine, Obama won’t change his mind. Will we ever know what threat steered him away from bombing Syria last year? I doubt we’ll know the facts one year from now.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2014 6:00 utc | 136

@oui.. turkey’s situation is compounded due the never ending kurdish issue. i don’t completely understand where turkey is going at present, but i do know the past year or two they have been swamped with too many refuges. i would imagine they would like that to stop. maybe they are starting to understand how siding with the usa is not a good thing?
i agree with you in your examples.. anyone who thinks obama/usa is simply wanting to get rid of ISIS and then go home ignore the recent history, including the usa’s role in ukraine at regime change..
think about it for a second. there is nothing better the usa would like is some stupid colour revolution in russia.. short of that, they can stick it to putin in syria which is exactly what they are doing, when they aren’t preparing for more nato and etc bs next spring in ukraine… this loop gets tiring.. eventually we can all kiss the stars and stripes goodbye.. it was a good dream gone bad..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 6:26 utc | 137

james
I agree with you of course, US want regime change, the idea that US wouldnt target Syrian army etc is just stupid imo, of course they will take that chance. Theyre already taking about target Syrian military planes.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 30 2014 8:07 utc | 138

“…eventually we can al spring in ukraine… this loop gets tiring.. eventually we can al kiss the stars and stripes goodbye.. it was a good dream gone bad. ”
Posted by: james | Sep 30, 2014 2:26:07 AM | 137
Somehow I don’t think the US military grunts (colonels on down) will allow that to happen…ever. It may have to get extremely bad though, let us hope that it doesn’t and the USG begins to govern with the 99%ers best interests in mind and to not just keep padding corporations and 1%ers well heeled interests.

Posted by: really | Sep 30 2014 8:17 utc | 139

I just read that turks want to go in Syria too. Anyone else believe Assad gov will not be targeted?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 30 2014 10:25 utc | 140

@Anonymous | Sep 30, 2014 6:25:37 AM | 140
That is my headline a few posts ago: Turkey plans massive military escalation in Syria
I wasn’t sure that meant going into Kurdish Iraq too. I just got that answer to the affirmative as Turkish parliament is taking a vote for military intervention.
Watching a number of reports at the Turkish border near Kodane, the Syrian part of the Kurds (limked to PKK), it is clear the military are upping their presence as stray bullets and grenades fell inside Turkey from the ISIS attack on the village defended by villagers. It is also clear, the Turkey’s border with Syria was porous for jihadists traveling back and forth these past three years. These days, after the Syrian Kurds fled with their families, wives, children and the elderly, the men wanted to return to Kodane to battle ISIS. The Turkish Army is preventing the men from returning and fighting ISIS!

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2014 10:54 utc | 141

Oui
Wouldnt surprise me if Turkey go in Northern Syria and occupy it. Along with a possible nofly-zone Syria could become a real mess.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 30 2014 11:09 utc | 142

@ james #134
@133 don – lets agree to disagree.. we can revisit this in 1 year.
I’m addressing the situation now, not conjecturing about a year from now, and not makin’ stuff up about Turkish invasions etc. You guys read too much Penny, who has been predicting NATO going into Syria for years. The US controls NATO, and there is no desire by Obama nor the US military, at all levels, right now, to get into yet another losing quagmire.
It’s lots of fun to predict the future, especially at the horse-track. Personally I’d rather stick to present reality. But don’t let me stop you and your tarot cards.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 30 2014 13:54 utc | 143

Don Bacon
So in december when US realize that aistrikes dont help what you think would happen? They will just leave?
US didnt want to be stuck in Afghanistan in 2001, they are still there. Arent they?
What will happen when ISIS going beyond the border of Turkey? Turkey will sait and wait?
1+1 = 2 very simple.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 30 2014 14:26 utc | 144

Turkey is a popular destination for european tourists. If ISIS were to bombing/causing unrest in Turkey then those tourists will disappear within days/weeks. That’s why Turkey fears the day the ISIS rebels start to make inroads into Turkey.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 30 2014 14:49 utc | 145

Well . . .
lil ol Donnie’s in fightin mood today.
@ james #134
@133 don – lets agree to disagree.. we can revisit this in 1 year.
I’m addressing the situation now, not conjecturing about a year from now, and not makin’ stuff up about Turkish invasions etc. You guys read too much Penny, who has been predicting NATO going into Syria for years. The US controls NATO, and there is no desire by Obama nor the US military, at all levels, right now, to get into yet another losing quagmire.
It’s lots of fun to predict the future, especially at the horse-track. Personally I’d rather stick to present reality. But don’t let me stop you and your tarot cards.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 30, 2014 9:54:32 AM | 143

Lol
only problem with that, Donnie old chap, is that, as you have demonstrated copious times in the recent past, you’re not very good even at the relatively simple task discerning “present reality”
So you stick at that by all means, since failing at the relatively simple task discerning “present reality” seems to be your own personal incompetence level
. You guys read too much Penny, who has been predicting NATO going into Syria for years.
Lol
Donnie – irrespective of how it looks like to you when viewed through the prism of your myopic/astigmatised coke-bottle-thick lenses , the major components of NATO already are “in Syria”.

Posted by: yeowzaa | Sep 30 2014 16:02 utc | 146

Right now, The US and French and UK (All major NATO members, and all coinkidinkily also involved in the NATO takedown of Libya) are involved in an Air campaign which seems to involve bombing targets in Syria while, despite all the media and Gov and Mil guff to the contrary, a proxy army of the Empire using various silly names that people like you Don like to memorise and often recite, is playing the role of “boots on the ground”
SO only a fool would at this stage still try and maintain the fiction that NATO is somehow not already “in Syria”, Don

Posted by: yeowzaa | Sep 30 2014 16:11 utc | 147

NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emk6QMVma3w
THis is the scums the west supports. Stuff like this makes me so pissed off.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 30 2014 16:38 utc | 148

@147 yeozaa.. thanks for your spin on this and don.. don doesn’t like connecting the dots.. his comment on tarot card readers was kinda funny! it is hard for me to take shit like that personally!

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 16:40 utc | 149

NATO has become the neo-nazi, ehh neo-con daemon of the US of A, read the reports produced by right-wing think-tanks [policy making Russia a pariah state!] not only in Washington DC but across the western world and Arab states during the past two decades. The 21st century has changed human kind to a corporate tool without a conscience and distributing death and destruction in small but continuous dosis. Fear has replaced hope, the western world has returned to the 1930s of austerity measures, joblessness and poor salaries for the lower class.
NATO has become an autonomous being with no oversight and indeed led by the US Commander in Chief, or by absence the VP is in charge (his residence at Number One Observatory Circle in the USNO). The role of the NAVY and the lead-up to wars is historic: Bay of Pigs invasion, false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident and the attack by Israel on the USS Liberty. The skirmishes in the Persian Gulf by the US Navy has led to several incidents with Iran.
NATO was used by Clinton to bomb Serbia into submission over Kosovo independence, by Obama to bomb Libya until regime change was effected and NATO’s Rasmussen took the lead for wrestling Ukraine away from Russian sphere of influence. NATO failed during the Georgian War, last year’s push for war with Syria and the annexation of Crimea by Russia. A push by Obama and NATO to overthrow Assad in Syria will provoke WWIII.
Not much has changed in the perception to act on Syria since last year. By acting against ISIL in Iraq, the decision to extend the war into Syria has become quite easy as I follow the discussions in European states. Europe has become more aggressive against Putin’s Russia, togetherness after shooting Malaysia flight MH-17 out of the sky and now a humanitarian crisis of refugees in neighbouring states of Syria. Looking for a R2P trigger to go in …
PS At the present time, only the US and Gulf States are bombing inside Syria. The European States require a U.N. mandate to bomb inside Syria as the lawful government in Damascus has not extended an invitation.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2014 16:43 utc | 150

One year ago:
○ Nato members could act against Syria without UN mandate

Posted by: Oui | Sep 30 2014 16:44 utc | 151

in the ‘a responsibility to CREATE MORE mercenaries’ dept – jim white has an article at emptywheel here.

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 16:53 utc | 152

P.S
Krazy crystall-balling tarot-carders don’t just read Penny, ya know . . .
Some krazy crystall-balling tarot-carders also read Aangirfan occasionally . . . UK HAS NOT HIT ISIS; US HAS KILLED SYRIAN KIDS; ISIS ONE MILE FROM BAGHDAD

The US and UK military have helped ISIS to get within one mile of Baghdad.
Isis ‘just one mile from Baghdad’ / ISIS fighters now ‘at the gates of Baghdad’
RAF jets have flown over Iraq but have not hit any ISIS targets.
Fifth RAF Iraq mission ends with ‘no reports’ of bombing – BBC
Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jets working for ISIS
“The Ministry of Defence in London confirmed that the missions carried out by Tornado GR-4 fighter bombers since they were given the green light to launch air strikes on IS targets in Iraq on Friday had ended with them returning to their airbase in Cyprus with their weapons still on board.”
RAF jets fly armed missions over Iraq – but bomb no ISIS targets.
In order to help ISIS topple Assad, US and Arab jets have killed a number of women and children in Syria.

(Links at source)

Posted by: yeowzaa | Sep 30 2014 16:59 utc | 153

The hilariously sad thing is that some here will actually try to claim my 153 is some sort of confirmation of Don bacon’s earlier statements

Posted by: yeowzaa | Sep 30 2014 17:03 utc | 154

What a coincidence
Isis is strong where Syrian air defences are not.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 30 2014 17:45 utc | 155

From link @ 155

Evidence suggests that ISIS already began evacuating and relocating its headquarters facilities in Raqqa long before U.S. airstrikes began.

LOL

Posted by: yeowzaa | Sep 30 2014 18:23 utc | 156

@154 yeowzaa..lets hope not.. @156 – makes sense doesn’t it… blow up previously controlled syrian infrastructure while making like you are going after ISIS..
@155 somebody.. that was a pretty good article..
the saker has a good overview on ISIS in iraq recent event which you can read here.. if the usa and it’s bs allied forces were interested in getting ISIS, they appear to be doing exactly the opposite of that by making them stronger.. of course this makes sense to me as i see ISIS as the mercenary group paid for by this same allied group – usa/saudi/israel/qatar bunch..

Posted by: james | Sep 30 2014 18:42 utc | 157

James, you are a good guy but – at this moment – you are an idiot to encourage this troll, who is obviously the same troll as ever. If you’re going to side with this disruptor – who has nothing to say except for what disrupts – you are not being honest.
Argue with don, don’t agree with a repeatedly banned, ignorant chump just to get your “point” across.
Don is a frequent, serious poster here. As are you. So why get involved with this troll then? As if he has a thing to say in the world that is serious or honest?

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 1 2014 1:57 utc | 158

Andre Vitchek sums it up: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39796.htm

Obama and Cameron are building on that grand old tradition of the deranged British colonial empire. It was, after all, only 80 years ago when then British Prime Minister Lloyd George commented on Britain’s success in undermining a disarmament conference— which would have barred the use of air-power against civilians, particularly those in the Middle East. He pointed out that it was a success. His secretary and second wife Frances wrote:

“At Geneva, other countries would have agreed not to use aeroplanes for bombing purposes, but we insisted on reserving the right, as D[avid] puts it, to bomb niggers! Whereupon the whole thing fell through, & we add 5 million to our air armaments expenditure…”

Decades later, the Empire retains this and many other similar ‘rights’.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 1 2014 2:40 utc | 159

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said today his government is “satisfied” with the U.S.-led bombing campaign against the Islamic State. He made the remarks during an interview with the Associated Press.
Moallem said that the U.S. does not inform Syria of every strike before it happens. He added, “But it’s OK.” He said that Syria heard from the United States 24 hours before it led the initial airstrikes last week.
Moallem continued that the fight against ISIL has “aligned” Damascus with Western and Arab opponents of the Syrian regime in “fighting the same enemy.” (AP, 29 September)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2014 3:12 utc | 160

The exceptional nation being indespensable:
East Syria Economy in Ruins as US Destroys Privately-Owned Refineries

The economy of eastern, ISIS-held Syria is in ruins after some of the ugliest cases of civilian infrastructure targeting in years by US warplanes, as officials bragged about cutting off “ISIS funding” by wiping out most of the oil refineries in the area.
It’s presented as a destruction of “ISIS oil refineries,” but they’re not. They’re actually privately-owned refineries belonging to individuals and small companies in the region.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1 2014 4:42 utc | 161

I have lots of issues with Tarpley, but he is certainly convinced that Obama is trying to prevent – not start – a war on Syria.

Posted by: guest77 | Oct 1 2014 5:05 utc | 162

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1, 2014 12:42:37 AM | 160
Yep. ISIS taxed them. With that reasoning they will bomb all civilian infrastructure.
The US is bombing now what they and allies created. When you go back all the “safe haven” “no fly zone” talk there was also talk of training rebel groups to effectively run the areas they take over (Germany was involved there), civil administration etc.
North Eastern Syria was groomed to be the no fly zone protected seat of the Turkish/Qatari Muslim Brotherhood opposition government.
Saudi nixed that. They are fine with ISIS getting bombed as long as Assad is removed without the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power. They want fries with it, too.
The interesting thing is how these wars are paid for. I guess the gulf pays for the coalition bombing.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 5:23 utc | 163

@guest77 #161:
Sorry, I’m old school. I agree with Jason Ditz that “the concerted effort to cripple the economy of a region filled with millions of people with military strikes” is not just engaging in a war, it is a war crime. Obama is to Syria as Clinton was to Yugoslavia.
If Obama is trying to prevent a war on Syria, he is failing as miserebly at that as he does on everything else other than lying and destroing countries.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1 2014 5:26 utc | 164

@somebody #162:
All your observations are probably correct. Here’s another quote from the Ditz post:

Yesterday, the US warplanes also attacked multiple grain silos in eastern Syria, killing civilians and destroying a large amount of stored food. Though the initial assessment was that this was an accidental targeting, the US war seems to be aiming for these sorts of targets, and less and less concerned about the civilians it kills along the way.

The usual American way of war. Same as what the fascist junta is doing to Novorossia.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1 2014 5:49 utc | 165

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1, 2014 1:49:38 AM | 164
The Gulf paying would also explain the demented strategy “not helping Assad”.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 6:01 utc | 166

157
Don is a f*ckin clueless decrepit dishonest useless vietnam-era twat, as are you

Posted by: blowMe | Oct 1 2014 6:15 utc | 167

@157 guest77.. thanks for sharing your perspective on my actions. i don’t read penny.. don’s comment seemed a bit mean spirited, or inaccurate depending on one’s perspective..we are all entitled to our perspective however wrong and out of sync with others.. if yeowzaa wants to comment on it and i opt to comment to him – so be it. i don’t have a closed attitude to anyone, including cold or someone who someone else views as a troll. if someone says something that has merit, i will consider it. speaking of which M K Bhadrakumar’s view here is well thought out.. kremlin stooge also has an article up here. enjoy..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2014 7:28 utc | 168

http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-wheat-warfare-islamic-state-uses-grain-111833405.html
I wonder how long have IS been at this city on the Turkish border. I would bet pretty long. I remember the first reports about the kidnapped bishops saying they were at the hands of Chechens close to the Turkish border.
Why are the Turks not held accountable for having a city controled by IS at its border without moving a finger?

Posted by: Mina | Oct 1 2014 8:01 utc | 169

167
For the Gimp, its not what was said but who said it that counts
Thats how he manages to first stupidly and very very loudly argue against opinions and viewpoints i post here, and then months later the braindead gimp equally as loudly argues in favour of those very same viewpoints and opinons
And not only that, but the clueless gimp actually seems to think no one notices

Posted by: blowMe | Oct 1 2014 9:21 utc | 170

Posted by: Mina | Oct 1, 2014 4:01:29 AM | 168
Because this war has been outsourced to interested parties. Same desastrous business model as Libya.
Erdogan – though his country is multi-religious, and though there are good business relations with Iran – is on record to exploit the “Sunni-Shiite divide” competing with Saudi Arabia – in close cooperation with the US.
Basically, there was a democratic “Islamic light” plan.
But no matter who funds Turkish mosques – Saudis or Qataris – their preachers are Wahhabi and preach sectarian intolerance so IS must have grass root influence in Turkey.
Erdogan’s and AKP’s economic and political success are built on Islamic marketing and branding – how can he now confuse his followers to tell them there are good and bad Sunnis, and what is the difference.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 9:26 utc | 171

@Mina #168:
Nice find. That explains why the uS is destroying oil refineries and grain silos in ISIS held territory, and why the Syrian government does not appear to be complaining about that.
Muhammad was a highway robber before he became a (false) prophet, so it should not be surprising that ISiS terrorists think that the way to advance Islam is to steal wheat and oil in order to finance their jihad (against other Arabs and Muslims!).
How anyone can take seriously a religion created by someone who earned his living by robbing caravans before he invented a false religion which served as the ideological underpinning for motivating his troops to engage in military conquests, thus providing him with a new source of income, is beyond me.

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1 2014 9:38 utc | 172

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1, 2014 5:38:42 AM | 171
You are mixing cause and effect. I know – old – people who hitch hiked through Afghanistan as hippies – exploiting peoples hospitable nature. No problems. How come this is not possible today – Afghanistan – and the whole of the Middle East used to be able to live with different Islamic sects, Buddhists, Christians and Jews – much better than Christian crusaders who could not tolerate other religions, or Catholics could not live with Protestants – how come this has changed – it cannot be Islam.
This here is Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1979 telling the Taliban that god is on their side. This was not the idea of a religious leader. It was the idea of a political leader who was formed by Catholicism.
The Israeli – Saudi alliance seems to be off, by the way.
Experts – Saudis have radicalized 80 percent of US mosques

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 10:20 utc | 173

This here is an interesting thesis on US hegemonic strategy

Brzezinski detractors strongly criticize his brutality and his focus on the military facet. But from another perspective, the excessive importance given to it can be justified. It can be explained throughout the old Latin adage» Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum», in other words, if you want peace, prepare the War. And it might have its roots in «Nicollo Machiavelli» masterpiece «The Prince» (1513) where he explains whether a Prince must be loved or feared. «From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved». Then, in such a logic, USA as Princes must be feared by other states rather than loved, and this fear finds its
fundaments in the American massive and unmatched military power. So, USA is loved and appreciated, but in a contrary case, they will not hesitate to recourse to their destruction forces towards dissident and recalcitrant States.
Returning to the main question within this part, «HOW». That means how the US could be able to set their hegemonic aims.
In 1945, the main reason of the American participation within WW II was to fight Nazism and Fascism. From 1945 to 1991 the enemy was Communism. After this date finding a new enemy will be an imperative. The participation in the WW II was legitimated throughout the Pearl Harbor Attacks, and the Cold War throughout the blockage of Berlin and the war of Korea.
In the 90’s Islamism is going to replace Nazism, Fascism and Communism, and put to design the new axis of Evil. This point of view has been strengthened by jumble of stupidities as the clash of civilizations, or the roots of Muslim rage and so forth. Some Western authors will develop some theories that will create false debates. According to such biased results, we are going to give more importance to «the violent feature» of a culture to justify and legitimate guiding armed actions against it, as being the only solution.
In fact, we are living in a world dominated by the economical interests and the economical interests only. We must overtake the simplest and Manichean approaches that divide the world in two «Axis»: The Good and the Evil. Humans will use any pretext to justify the theft of what does not belong to them. We are living in a jungle where the struggle goes on who will have more. All concerns economical struggles that are given the shape of religious, ethnic, ideological conflicts. It only turns on money and money only. Being, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Black, White, Yellow or Red does not really matter. Racial, or Religious approaches have as purpose to create only false debates.
When it goes on defending own interests, moral values and principles are thrown to a secondary position.
Zbigniew Brzezinski did not express exactly in what way the American Administration must apply his theory. But we can easily argue -above all after the 9/11 events- that it recourse to a classical Manichean approach, where the USA, being the world peace and order Guardian and leader of Democracies and the Enlightened world is going to fight in the name of International Security, Democracy and Freedom the 21st Century axis of Evil, represented by «International Terrorism».
Then, by observing the Iraqi an Afghan case, and in the name of what those wars have been waged, we can without any difficulty affirm that «Kicking off a global war on terror» is one of the most efficient tool, allowing to dress Brzezinski’s Global domination Theory.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 10:24 utc | 174

New heights of the low

But at least one of the House members present, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who supports stronger U.S. action in Syria, said he was not overly concerned. “I did hear them say there were civilian casualties, but I didn’t get details,” Kinzinger said in an interview with Yahoo News. “But nothing is perfect,” and whatever civilian deaths resulted from the U.S. strikes are “much less than the brutality of the Assad regime.”

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 11:34 utc | 175

There is still a border between Syria and Iraq …

Targeting IS: New PM Abadi opposes Arab air strikes in Iraq
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has told the BBC he “totally” opposes Arab nations joining air strikes against Islamic State in his country. Several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have joined the international coalition against IS. Their aircraft have carried out strikes in Syria, but only those from the US, UK and France have hit targets in Iraq.
Iraq PM opposes foreign ground forces in Iraq

○ ISIL militants are advancing on Suleyman Shah Tomb in northern Syria guarded by Turkish troops

Posted by: Oui | Oct 1 2014 13:13 utc | 176

They are ‘bombing blind.’
They don’t really know what they’re bombing, or what the effects are.
Fox News:

The Associated Press, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported Wednesday that the Defense Department is relying on satellites, drones and surveillance flights to pinpoint targets for airstrikes, as well as assess the damage afterward and determine whether civilians were killed. Officials say that system stands in sharp contrast to the networks of bases, spies and ground-based technology the U.S. had in place during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. military says airstrikes have been discriminating and effective in disrupting an Al Qaeda cell called the Khorasan Group and in halting the momentum of Islamic State militants. But independent analysts say the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, remains on the offensive in Iraq and Syria, where it still controls large sections. And according to witnesses, U.S. airstrikes have at times hit empty buildings that were long ago vacated by ISIS fighters.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2014 13:44 utc | 177

They are ‘bombing blind.’
They don’t really know what they’re bombing, or what the effects are.
No, Don – that’s just your wonky “discerning present reality” filter, it’s clouding your vision .
They probably know exactly what they are bombing, but why should they really care what the effects are . . . . since it’s all merely “theatre for the stupids” anyway.
They were created with scenarios like the current one firmly in mind, . . . in order to bamboozle “the stupids”

Posted by: yeowzaa | Oct 1 2014 15:13 utc | 178

@somebody #172:
You’re right, of course. I was just making the point that ISIL may be correct in its position that its behavior is based on an early and authentic form of Islam.
Wahhabism is often denigrated by Western liberal defenders of Islam as not being a valid or authentic form of Islam, but who is to say that Wahhabism is no less a valid form of Islam than more liberal and moderate forms of it (which allowed hippies to hitchike through Muslim countries), in the same way that it is sometimes alleged that Christian fundamentalism is no less a valid form of Christianity than Russian Orthodoxy or Lutheranism? (Note that I do not imply that Roman Catholicism is a valid form of Christianity, because the papacy is up to its old tricks of working to destroy Russia. (Pope Francis met with the Ukie P.M. Yats. Evidently, for Francis, being a Scientologist war criminal is fine, just as long as you hate Russia.))

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1 2014 16:14 utc | 179

i agree with somebody @172 as well..
back to mina’s article @168.. mina thanks for the article, but the article is not about a city at turkeys border, so it is a bit weird your focus on turkey’s lack of involvement in doing something about it.. maybe you could explain that to me..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2014 17:59 utc | 180

Posted by: Demian | Oct 1, 2014 12:14:38 PM | 178
That is unlikely as the Koran does not know Sunni and Shia, but has only Christians and Jews to diss, the Christian New Testament disses Jews exclusively. All of them used to be able to live together in Muslim countries. Jews had to emigrate from Spain when the Catholic king won against Islam.
Nothing in the New Testament claims there has to be a pope. This did not prevent Catholics massacring Protestants and vice versa, nor did the peaceful life of the religion’s founder.
Religious texts have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 1 2014 18:05 utc | 181

@181 somebody… it is in the best interests of the war party to portray this as a religious conflict and to help create this image as much as possible.. killing other people based on their religion or faith – there is nothing religious about any of that. any of these folks who claim they are upholding a religion while engaging in the types of actions we are witnessing in the middle east – religion is just a cheap excuse to do all the bullshit they are presently doing..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2014 19:05 utc | 182

the Christian New Testament disses Jews exclusively.
Who, let’s face it, deserve it completely.

Posted by: anonymous | Oct 1 2014 19:40 utc | 183

it is in the best interests of the war party to portray this as a religious conflict and to help create this image as much as possible.. .
Demian certainly does do that a lot, don’t he?

Posted by: anonymous | Oct 1 2014 19:43 utc | 184

@184 anonymous.. demian certainly discusses the religious angle more frequently.. i don’t know that he cultivates an attitude of this being the sole basis for conflict and war though.. i don’t claim to know the complexities around world religions..i find demians comments on the rc church under the pope provocative and interesting and don’t know the basis for them.. his comments on wahhabism and the liberal defenders of it not as convincing, but i don’t follow it closely.. my understanding of wahhabism is it is an extreme viewpoint along the lines of right wing christians, but much more extreme.. i can’t imagine anyone defending wahhabism who supports islam, but i am mostly ignorant on the topic. i also view wahhabism as a very serious problem and part of the type of fanaticism that is driving al qaeda or al qaeda version 2 – ISIS..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2014 20:40 utc | 185

Back to Main