Putin is taking center Stage in the Middle East but what is his real agenda?

Moscow’s military campaign in Syria is relying on supply lines that require air corridors through both Iranian and Iraqi air space. The only alternatives are naval supply lines running from Crimea, requiring a passage of up to 10 days round-trip. How long that can be sustained is unclear.

Early on the morning of Sept. 30, a Russian three-star general approached the American embassy in Baghdad, walked past a wall of well-armed Marines, to deliver face-to-face a diplomatic demarche to the United States. His statement was blunt: The Russia military would begin air strikes in neighboring Syria within the hour — and the American military should clear the area immediately.

It was a bout of brinksmanship between two nuclear-armed giants that the world has not seen in decades, and it has revived Cold War levels of suspicion, antagonism and gamesmanship.

With the launch of airstrikes in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin instigated a proxy war with the U.S., putting those nation’s powerful militaries in support of opposing sides of the multi-polar conflict. And it’s a huge gamble for Moscow and quite difficult and logistically complex. The Russians don’t have much in the way of long-range power projection capability.

That and other questions about Russian military capabilities and objectives are taking center stage as Putin shows a relentless willingness to use military force in a heavy-handed foreign policy aimed at restoring his nation’s stature as a world power. In that quest, he has raised the specter of resurgent Russian military might — from Ukraine to the Baltics, from Syria to the broader Middle East.

VLADIMIR Putin is preparing to send 150,000 troops to Syria in a bid to wipe out the evil Islamic State once and for all.

The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group’s stronghold of Raqqa.

The city is the self-declared capital of ISIS in Syria and is patrolled by as many as 5,000 jihadi members.

Putin is set to mobilize 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military earlier this week.

Russia-Putin_3151917b

It is very clear that Russia wants to sweep up the west of the country, taking Raqqa and all the oil and gas resources around Palmyra. Putin knows that this is fast becoming a race to Raqqa – to secure the oil fields they need to cleanse the region of insurgents, and the IS capital is vital to do that while Obama stance and strategy is to .

It comes a day after Russian jets obliterated nine ISIS outposts in just 24 hours using bunker-busting bombs.

Russian jets pounded terrorist targets and blew up a command center, potentially killing dozens of fighters.

Confirming the successful raids, Andrei Kartapolov from the Russian army vowed to ramp up the pressure, saying: “We will not only continue strikes… We will also increase their intensity.”

And Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said: “Over the past 24 hours, Sukhoi Su-34 and Su-24M fighter jets have performed 20 sorties and hit nine Islamic State installations.

A bunker-busting BETAB-500 air bomb dropped from a Sukhoi Su-34 bomber near Raqqa has eliminated the command post of one of the terror groups, together with an underground storage facility for explosives and munitions.

isis.w529.h352.2x-750x400

These and other highly exact means of attack in recent days have been used to target objects of Islamic State terrorists. It is reported that these command posts, stores of weapons and oil products, workshops where weapons of suicide bombers are made.

Meanwhile a terrorism expert revealed that ISIS have vastly exaggerated their military strength and called on Western leaders to launch a coordinated fightback which would obliterate the hate group.

Has ISIS become its own worst enemy with its campaign of terror against the West, which has prompted an international backlash?

Islamic-State-troops-358823 (1)

Other reports from those strategists say it won’t take very long at all to drive them, if not out of all of Iraq or Syria, then certainly the majority of their territories.

“They will hide in towns, but I would say do not to follow them as they would use innocent civilians as human shields.”

David Cameron initially gave the Russian air strikes a cautious welcome and said the UK would need to look very carefully at Putin’s operations. David Cameron said Russia was targeting anti-Assad rebels over Daesh militants.

David Cameron Has said Russian President Vladimir Putin is making a terrible mistake by sending jets to prop up Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad.

Cameron

The Prime Minister said most of the Russian airstrikes in Syria appeared to have been in areas not controlled by Islamic State but by other opponents of the regime.

He told the BBC the Russians were “backing the butcher Assad, which is a terrible mistake for them and for the world. It is going to make the region more unstable. It will lead to further radicalization and increase terrorism.asaadputin

“I would say to them: ‘Change direction, join us in attacking Isil, but recognize that if we want to have a secure region, we need an alternative leader to Assad’.”

But yesterday he warned the intervention is making the situation worse and helping to support the “butcher” president Bashar Assad.

Separately Mr. Cameron pledged to “beef up” the SAS and double the number of British drones to combat ISIS militants in an interview ahead of today’s Conservative conference.

The Prime Minister said investment in Special Forces and surveillance was essential to meeting the terrorist threat facing the UK.

He revealed that the UK will buy a fleet of 20 new Protector Drones capable of targeting IS extremists in Iraq and Syria.

The Russians called it Center 2015: a series of military exercises they carried out in mid-September involving some 95,000 troops. In contrast to common practice, Moscow outlined publicly with great specificity what type of exercises its troops conducted. Its Hind attack helicopters, for example, practiced rocket and bombing runs against ground targets and provided air cover at very low altitude to ground forces. They fired unguided rockets against military columns below. They practiced flying with one engine off—simulating engine failure—at just 650 feet above the ground.

bombs

Whether Russia’s incursion into the increasingly deadly Syrian civil war was foreseeable or not—and if it was, whether it was deterrable—is now moot. Russian President Vladimir Putin has in an instant changed markedly the course of a conflict that has claimed at least 250,000 lives and displaced millions—numbers that may yet grow much higher. Moscow and Iran, Damascus’s heretofore primary benefactor, are now making it clear that they are all-in when it comes to defending the current regime. On September 21, Iran began dispatching hundreds of elite Quds Force soldiers—the expeditionary arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard—as well as its leader, Qassem Suleimani, to lead ground assaults backed by Russian airpower against the forces opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. They have since been joined, according to intelligence reports, by deployments of Iranian and Iraqi Shiite militias.

They are there for a very specific reason, which is not simply to combat ISIS. By October 5, in fact, the Pentagon had become convinced that the majority of Russian air strikes thus far had targeted not ISIS units, but U.S. trained rebel groups in various parts of the country. The Russian troops are there to combat anyone and everyone who might fight against Assad, who the U.S. and its coalition partners still insist has to go. Indeed, on September 29, at the United Nations, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir could not have been clearer: “Assad has no future in Syria. Any attempt to whitewash him or make him acceptable is a nonstarter,” he told reporters.

The Russian intervention, as President Barack Obama, al-Jubeir and everyone else involved understands, comes at a critical moment. Despite the relative passivity and ineptness of the United States in funding and training anti-Assad rebels, the dictator’s position was slowly eroding as he attempted to fight off multiple rebel groups of varying sectarian and ethnic stripes (everything from hard-core ISIS fighters to more “moderate” Sunnis to Syrian Kurds). For Putin, a man who says repeatedly—because he believes it—that the greatest “geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was the demise of the Soviet Union.

But from Moscow’s perspective, there likely was more to it than that—much more. The move provides a foothold in a part of the world that the Soviet Union was kicked out of four decades ago. At a moment when the United States appears to be washing its hands of the increasingly bloody and chaotic region, it gives Russia an expanding military presence in the Mediterranean on the doorstep of a NATO ally (its newly established airfield at Latakia in eastern Syria sits just 75 miles from the border with Turkey), and the gambit may yet serve as leverage with the West as Putin seeks to get out from under economic sanctions imposed as a result of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine.

obama-putin_2637988b

Is Putin’s actions game-changing? Obama seemed less impressed—or less willing to congratulate the Kremlin on its cunning, at least in public. All this was done out of a position not of strength but of “weakness,” he said at a White House news conference in early October. “This is not a smart strategic move on Russia’s part.”

Throughout much of the Middle East, that declaration was met with howls of derision (for reasons that we will get to); at home, it was dismissed by many as petulant spin from a president who had been badly wrong-footed in this war. But whether Obama had been wrong-footed or not, the logic behind what he said is not obviously wrong. That Syria’s a snake pit couldn’t be more obvious. And it’s true, as sources in Moscow and the Middle East acknowledge, that if Russia decides more troops are needed to bolster its position, it may be drawn into a quagmire it can ill afford.

Despite a still-grim economy in Russia, Putin remains popular in his country. Most of what he does to show that Moscow is a serious player on the world stage only buttresses that good opinion. But the public appetite for a war against anti-Assad rebels in Syria appears limited, to say the least.

In Sunni Arab capitals around the Middle East, one word is being uttered with increasing frequency: “Afghanistan.” Not the ongoing post-9/11 U.S. war there, but the one before it: when the mighty Soviet army was driven out by jihadi rebels (who were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states) and armed by the United States. As a student of what is known in Russia as the “catastrophe,” Putin knows that the humiliating Soviet withdrawal came in 1989, after a decade of war.

By 1992, his beloved Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also knows that the same countries that aided the Afghan rebels in the 1980s are now funding anti-Assad rebel groups.

So should the United States just say, “After you, Vladimir Vladimirovich? Be our guest! Syria’s all yours,” as GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, among others, has advocated? If at least part of Putin’s plan is to combat ISIS—which, after all, the U.S. seeks to “degrade and destroy”—shouldn’t we welcome Moscow’s intervention, as Secretary of State John Kerry indicated Washington might?

The reasons why that’s probably a terrible idea are numerous. The deployment of the Russian military and increased Iranian ground forces means Assad can stay in power for as long as his two patrons desire. At the same time, there is also little evidence that the axis supporting Assad has the wherewithal to crush the Sunni-backed rebel groups.

It’s hard, therefore, to draw anything but the grimmest of conclusions. Syria—already a “geopolitical Chernobyl,” as former CIA chief David Petraeus recently put it—is about to get worse. Is it possible that the advent of Russian reinforcements is likely only to cement a brutal stalemate that has driven millions of people from their homes, radicalized the region, cause a humanitarian apocalypse, and turn Syria into a magnet for global jihadists?

syriacivilians-inspect-a-site

The Russian move into Syria will only deepen concern among Washington’s traditional allies in the Middle East about U.S. goals in the region. Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies have all watched, with varying degrees of alarm over the last five years, as the Obama administration zealously pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, an archenemy to all of those countries. Obama did so over their strenuous objections. Many suspect—indeed, some are convinced—that his overarching goal in the region was to legitimize Iran, integrate it into the international system so as to, as his stance was back in 2014 to create an “equilibrium” between “Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.”

If Obama’s goal was to get Iran to that place, starting with a nuclear deal, how likely was it that he was going to attack Syria in the wake of its chemical attacks, even having drawn a “red line” in 2012? Similarly, Tehran didn’t want a more aggressively funded and trained Western-backed rebel force in Syria, and Obama hasn’t done much to provide one. Had there been some firm action, we would not be in the place we are in.

This relative inaction has bred toxic suspicions throughout Washington’s traditional allies in the region—suspicions that are rarely voiced publicly but have hardened over the past 18 months. Simply put, they believe the Obama administration has not just pulled away from the Middle East but rather switched horses—backing Iran in search of that equilibrium the president spoke of last year. The White House has consistently and furiously denied this.

Vladimir-Putin-Islamic-State-troops-609757

Now, with Putin in Syria and Obama just 15 months from his White House retirement, the likelihood that the U.S. will do anything of consequence to change the status quo on the ground is slim. It seems extremely unlikely that Obama will risk a direct conflict with Putin. Any hope of a no-fly zone in Syria, or even an intensification of U.S. airstrikes, is likely gone as well. Indeed, with Europe under tremendous pressure from the crush of Syrian refugees, the fear among Sunni Arabs is that the West will latch on to Putin and Iran as the only hope for reining in Assad.

But that’s not why Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. They are there to prop up Assad by helping him destroy “terrorists”—defined as anyone fighting against his regime. It’s been about four and a half years since Syria’s civil war commenced—since it became a “geopolitical Chernobyl.” The meltdown may have only just begun.

Why is the United States the Police Department for the World?

Why is it incumbent for us to intervene in almost every conflict and put our troops in harm’s way? With the ever escalating fiscal crisis in our country and our own domestic conflicts to fight here with our oversight committees in Washington, there appears to be hundreds of oversights to be accountable right here.

The United States is simply not the emergency police service of the world when another country pushes the buttons for 911 as no other country dialed in on 9-11 in New York. Our interests are served just fine enough with diplomacy, not military might. We have the Department of Defense, not the Department of War nor the Department of 9-11 Crisis.

military fighting

Our past Presidents has thrown us into Wars that is not our fight but into a conflict that is simply a civil war and unrest between rival nations and not a war with the United States. Obama was a President voted into office because of his views in part to his approach to the use of armed forces so Americans chose a candidate who has opposed Bush’s was in Iraq and bring U.S. commitments back in line where the Norwegian Nobel Committee thought so to all too soon. However, as we saw all, Hussein was the only Muslim and President in history who bowed to an Arab Sheik which is a sign of weakness. This set an epitome.

If we are stockpiling weapons, why are we handing billions of dollars of weaponry to countries that are inevitably used against our troops? War does have its place when it is justified as in War War II. We must be serving the American people, not the Arab world or the Islamic state.

We are the problem. We have allowed our government to make decisions that is not in the best interests of the American people. I always believe till today, that the government are elected officials who are public servants to serve and preserve liberty and freedom and the American taxpayer. Here and not abroad.

History have proven that approximately 6,000 U.S. troops were Killed in action and immeasurable were wounded. Almost the same committed suicide upon their return. In the Iraq conflict, almost 7,000 U.S. troops were killed and the much higher number in military contractors and more wounded. The cost to the United States was about 2 TRILLION dollars.

USCasualtiesC130DoverAFB

We need to reign in establish a multi-disciplinary approach to tax and fiscal analysis and the utility of government in America that is fully transparent. We must demand and wipe away the obscurity of the government’s ability to enhance the quality of life to compliment the prosperity of our society at large and not the political machine. I believe that our government has set an example of a greedy corrupt mechanism of a new world order.

We no longer require rhetoric, we should thirst for a directive action that is in the best interests of the American public and no one else. The public needs to take back our country and know if our leadership is working in the best interests of our nation and not ‘special interests’ hell bent on greed. They can be terminated just like any hard-working American. We need to reign in politicians who spend our money lavishly because they believe in entitlement. The only entitlement they deserve is what we are entitled to; a reasonable pay check, accountable to pay their child support, taxes, be arrested for their crimes and removed from office like any other citizen. No one is above the law.

 quote-leading-from-the-front-it-s-what-built-america-but-these-days-the-federal-government-isn-t-at-michael-bloomberg-211852

We need to clean house. Lower unemployment and crime. Give jobs to the citizens of this country and not outsource to third world toilets. Our military can fill positions to watch our borders, fill law enforcement positions and create other agencies to deport all illegal aliens, tighten, enhance and provide proper law enforcement training who are in positions to also ‘serve and protect’ and not beat and menace.

I remember when my parents, grandparents came to this country, it was not a right and a privilege. You had to earn your right to enter this country thru Ellis Island. Today, most people if not all believe in the opposite with their hands out and our government obliges handing them food stamps, housing, and education on our dime. What has happened?

There is so many important changes that needs to be addressed and all of us have a voice. Why are so many mute and afraid to speak? God, gave you a voice. Cowards hide in the shadows, Bystanders stand with the ignorant and are the catalyst for failure. What is important to you?

CRISIS IN SYRIA

The U.S. stance is to train Syrian opposition forces by the U.S. Military to defend its territory rather than to seize it back from the Islamic State.

The Syrian fighters are essential to defeating the Islamic State as countries like Turkey, Jodan and Qatar stand by. However these assembled units under the Obama administration’s will not be able to capturing key towns from the militants without U.S. Combat teams which Obama has ruled out. The Syrians then will be tasked to only preventing ISIL to reach beyond the control it maintains.

Military officials also want U.S. and allied special operations troops to advise opposition forces if those forces are thrust into combat, helping them to fight effectively and reducing the chances that the new units will disintegrate in the heat of battle.

You cannot field an effective force if you’re not on the ground to advise and assist them,” said a senior U.S. military officer with extensive experience in training the Iraqi and Afghan militaries.

Obama’s unwillingness to deploy ground combat forces is rooted in concern that American troops would be drawn into a long, bloody war in the Middle East.

Obama position is to have our military train as many as 5,00 Syrian fighters a year as an effective opposition force, not just a hit-and-run group of rebels. The first units are expected to be deployed in roughly six months. The plan is for them to safeguard cleared areas and end up being a defensive force more than an offensive force.

Lt. Gen. William Mayville, the director of operations for the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, said the opposition fighters would receive basic training and it will have some effect but not a decisive effect in the battle against the Islamic State.

A defensive opposition force also could allow President Bashar al-Assad’s government to regain territory it has lost to the Islamic State, which has been pummeled — but remains far from defeated — by hundreds of U.S. and coalition air strikes over the past month.

The long range of basic training will not suffice in the war on ISIS. Syrian militants in 6 months to a year cannot reverse Islamic State gains and certainly will not destroy the infrastructure that have enabled them to operate successfully in Iraq and elsewhere..

Those who have fled the country as refugees most likely will not want to return to their war-ravaged homeland. And some may turn to fight for ISIS

U.S. troops intends to use basic training sessions which will focus on unit discipline and elementary combat skills and advanced training in the future. This is called long ranging with hopes of engagement down the road.

Administration officials say technological advancements will allow the U.S. military to provide a degree of air support to Syrian forces without having to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They note that in Iraq, U.S. commanders recently employed surveillance aircraft, including drones, to identify Islamic State militants near the Mosul Dam, striking them in proximity to Kurdish forces.

US officials are also talking to Jordan, Qatar and Turkey about training camps being established in Saudi Arabia. This is sending a evident message that this recruitment effort there is no U.S. commitment and our unwillingness to commit to toppling Assad and ISIS but rather sitting on th sidelines and watching from afar.

John McCain sated that it is immoral to “fight and die when we’re not going to protect them from Bashar Assad’s barrel bombs or from ISIS…You’re not going to get people to volunteer to do that.”

Some senior Defense Department officials advised that involving the use of covert operatives and private contractors reporting to the CIA, not the Pentagon, who could provide combat advice to Syrian forces and summon air support but a senior Arab official said such a request would be unlikely to receive an enthusiastic response among coalition members if the United States did not also commit troops.

Either way you look at it, basic training over a year period is sending more lambs to slaughter. Air atrikes had proven to be effective but now long will the effectiveness be to topple a terrorist group hell bent on destroying everything in its path with an instatiable quench for power.

Justification of War

World War I, was declared “the war to end all wars.” Unfortunately, wars just kept happening and we have to inquire why.

Once upon a time wars were fought for strength, fun and profit where that is still prevalent. We saw that with the Germans in WWII and was the best predictor of civil war in poor countries with the availability of lootable resources like diamonds. War in the preindustrial world was and still is more like a competition among crime families over who gets to control the rackets than a fight over principles.

You can rationalize that war simply does not pay if victorious even for the modern, wealthier nation(s). In this regard, military power is socially and economically futile. War would necessarily inflict severe economic harm even on the victor and that modern war is very, very expensive. For example, the Iraq war cost us over $1 trillion, many times Iraq’s entire G.D.P.
With that in mind, modern nations can’t enrich themselves by waging war. Yet wars keep happening. Why?

Is it a delusion that Putin thought that he could easily overthrow Ukraine’s government or enough of a chunk of it to land it in his lap on the cheap side? And for that matter, remember when the Bush administration predicted that overthrowing Saddam and installing a new government would cost only $50 billion or $60 billion?

War is always about money or a faltering economy that needs a distraction with hopes to gain politically from war. Leaders hope to distract its public from this debacle and history has shown like the present that sheep favors its ruler that invokes war.

putin

The fact is that nations almost always rally around their leaders in times of war, no matter how foolish the war or how awful the leaders. Argentina’s junta briefly became extremely popular during the Falklands war. For a time, the “war on terror” took President George W. Bush’s approval to dizzying heights, and Iraq probably won him the 2004 election. True to form, Mr. Putin’s approval ratings have soared since the Ukraine crisis began.

Starting a war going back 100 years when Britain entered the first World War was very bad but that is not valid as it is today. Times has changed with the proliferation of modern day Islamic Extremists. In the past, most cases wars are initiated by governments, not by populations. And, most of the time, they are the result of disputes over resources and land, or of a government’s desire to increase its influence and power. However, looking back over the history of warfare, what is most striking is how willing most people have been to fight in wars, or at least to support them.

It creates a sense of unity in the face of a collective threat. It binds people together – not just the army engaged in battle, but the whole community. It brings a sense of cohesion, with communal goals, and inspires individual citizens (not just soldiers) to behave honourably and unselfishly, in the service of a greater good. It supplies meaning and purpose, transcending the monotony of everyday life. Warfare also enables the expression of higher human qualities that often lie dormant in ordinary life, such as courage and self-sacrifice.

There is a moral and ethical purpose that drives men to war that gives us that sense of feeling alive, of belonging and purpose but more importantly to me and not speaking to the masses of the American people but of right and wrong but our philosophies of life, freedom, liberty, and oppression. Americans do not commit acts of genocide in the endeavor of world domination.

This isn’t to say that a warring party may not have a just cause, and this argument doesn’t explore other important social and psychological factors involved in war, such as social identity and moral exclusion. However, it does show that any stable, lasting peace depends on creating societies with a richness of opportunity and variety that can meet human needs. The fact that so many societies throughout the world fail to do this makes our future prospects of peace look very bleak.

Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that “A just war is in the long run far better for a man’s soul than the most prosperous peace”), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.

declaration-of-war (1)

In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force. It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush’s war in Iraq and could bring U.S. commitments back in line with our resources.

Above all, Americans thought Obama would be a lot more thoughtful about where and how to use force, and that he understood the limits of this crudest of policy tools. The Norwegian Nobel Committee seems to have thought so too, when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize not for anything he had done, but for what it hoped he might do henceforth.

Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it’s increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.

I believe America’s biggest problem is that we never learned from our mistake in our prior engagements. The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military but not using it to its full potential. We have the resources; hundreds of planes, smart bombs, cruise missiles and even WMD.

With reconciling our differences with other countries and rebuilding the infrastructure as our government defines it, we have put millions of arms and other weaponry into the very hands of the Terrorists who kill the very valor or our brave and honorable Military personnel.

The platform and foundation of our country is that we never negotiate with terrorists. It appears that this platform has shifted in an ominous dishonorable manner one would fashion to determine to be treasonous. This has directly led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of our own American lives.

If one was to look at who fuels the ideology of war between warring parties is the media and government. Both fuel each other. If not for the media, there is no vessel for propaganda and one’s justification.

obama-60-minutes-underestimated-isis

Obama justifies his resort to force by invoking America’s special place in the world is his usual . rhetoric and couched terms of U.S. values, commitment to freedom, etc. Back in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said that his favorite movie was The Godfather. And if I recall correctly, he said his second favorite movie was The Godfather, Part II. But his presidency is starting to play out like Part III of that famed trilogy, where Michael Corleone rails against the fates that have foiled his attempt to make the Corleone family legit.

I can just hear Obama saying it: “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in.”

Western Ignorance of ISIS

It is tempting for British, American and other Western peoples to say: ‘Leave them to it; there is nothing in Iraq for us; we have learned the hard way what happens when we meddle in Muslim societies.’

Such an attitude is completely understandable. But it is hard to see how we can stand by and do nothing while the barbarian hordes sweep across one of the world’s key strategic regions, slaughtering at will Christians, Yazidis and every other minority sect in their path setting their sites on other countries and even the United States. They are already here as sleeper cells.

isis1

The extremists has already seized key areas in the Middle East and are looking to consolidate control of these areas with piles of cash and vast stockpiles of weapons.

Their will be no end to the killing and massacre in their path to terrorist domain and to the global menace they represent. This is the first time I think the Russians have a point. They keep waggling their fingers and saying to us “be careful what you wish for”. They believe the anti-Assad Jihadis represent a threat to us all, and they are right.

The West cannot reverse its policy towards Syria and suddenly join the Russians in backing the murderous Assad regime. But we can now see that, wherever Assad loses control, he is supplanted notby moderate democrats, but by extremist Jihadis, shooting and beheading as they go.

Obama is weak and as days turn into weeks, ISIS dominance grows dramatically killing thousands in its path. By the end of this month, that number will exceed another million. See my next blog why Obama and his administration is responsible for stockpiling arms to ISIS and training their militants.

The Massacre of Shiites – U.S. Accountability

Our own country sanctioned by Obama at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars to train Iraqi soldiers has unfolded in many wars. The largest way is leading to the massacre of Shiites (ISIS) taken and slaughtered by Sunni Militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The massacre was no different and was perpetuated by ISIS which came after another massacre of Iraqi soldiers stationed at Camp Speicher, a former American army base in Tikrit, Hussein’s hometown.

The suspected scale of the massacre — ISIS claimed it killed 1,700 Shiite soldiers which was confirmed to be accurate which would make it the deadliest sectarian atrocity in Iraq’s recent history.

The story of the massacre tells as much about the woeful state of the Iraqi military, a force created and trained by the United States at a cost of billions of dollars, as it does about the cruelty of ISIS.

The conquests of ISIS has demonstrated the psychological effects to this author to the direct victim of victim offender. When the US left Iraq, the war in Iraq was not over for the Sunnis and Shiites, In fact, a new civil unrest and a new faction emerged in the form of barbaric terrorism without limitations. The culture of Iraqis is not for forgiveness. They are from the desert; their culture is for revenge.

The United States encouraged the Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein who in turn slaughtered tens of thousands of Shiites as the U.S. stood by when the uprising against Hussein’s rule in 1991 was encouraged by American officials. But the United States then stood by as Mr. Hussein’s security forces slaughtered tens of thousands of people which explains why Shiites in the south never trusted the Americans when they invaded in 2003.

The certainty now, is that ISIS will continue to massacre anyone that stands in their way or opposes them. History has a way to repeat itself and revenge does come back with vengeance.

Social Media Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: BACKPAGE.com and CRAIGSLIST

Is BACKPAGE.COM a bigger PIMP than CRAIGSLIST? Which is the leader in SEX TRAFFICKING and online prostitution across the world? From my research and being a leading authority in the investigation, recovery of missing children and human trafficking, Craigslist certainly rivals back page here in the United States but CRAIGSLIST certainly beats out BACKPAGE.COM. It is not so much a rivalry but a criminal enterprise in open view tolerated by our criminal justice system. handovermouth Adult classifieds site Backpage.com is profiting from one of the ugliest crimes on the planet: sex trafficking. They are facilitating sex slavery and why to this date they have not shut the site down is beyond comprehension. Backpage says that they are doing more to fight sexual exploitation than any other classified ad site on the web and have no plans to shut the site down. The owners of the site, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin also owners of the Village Voice Media not too long ago ditched all of its editorial properties, taking pressure off Village Voice Media’s brand advertisers and investors to distance themselves from the Backpage controversy, and leaving the beleaguered (but very profitable) classifieds site as a stand alone ad Platform as part of their cover my ass program. So, let’s look at the facts and not just the jargon even though we all know all facts and statistics are not all exact. ● Backpage.com accounts for about 70% of America’s prostitution advertising ● Earns more than $22 million annually from prostitution ads – NY Times ● 80% of online prostitution advertising revenue – Reuters ● Continues to get rich off of human suffering to the tune of $24 million a year” – The Daily Beast There are ridiculous statistics out there to explain the procedures that Backpage and Craigslist to disseminate their removal process for spam and fraud on posts outside of sex or personal posts. Backpage and Craigslist posts approximately 7.5 million ads a month in dozens of countries and hundreds of categories. Of those ads approximately 20% of those ads are listed in the adult category. You do the math. These pimps want you to believe that they do everything within their power sand with the aid of the National Center for Missing Exploited Children (NCMEC) try to keep up by removing posts by examining credentials against phone numbers, email and IP addresses of ad posters Backpage has already flagged. They claim to scan ads for links to viruses, MK_logomalware and URLs that NCMEC has blacklisted as being associated with child pornography. This effectiveness is about (.01 percent) of its monthly ad volume. If you do not know that these sites are available to our children, you are ignorant. This is the root of the problem and it is a cancer but there is a solution. Backpage and Craigslist do NOT even oblige or abide as they say by their own TERMS AND CONDITIONS such as illegal activities, like “offers of sex for any kind of compensation(including suspected code words), sex acts in images, nudity, potential harm or violence” but are more concerned about flagging, removing deleting or blacklisting legitimate businesses . #1 Pimp in the Nation One of the questions is how does Backpage and Craigslist know how to monitor the age of the person entering their sites? Would one think, that a simple process of entering a credit

Jim Larkin - Founder of Backpage.com and 2nd largest pimp in the nation

Jim Larkin – Founder of Backpage.com and 2nd largest pimp in the nation

card for verification purposes would help to eliminate this cancer help with a call back to the card holder to verify? However, these methods like credit cards and drivers licenses, cannot be used to identify minors, because the absence of those things does not necessarily mean the person is a child or the child would have access to those items. Even more fuel to shut down all adult advertising. Does these scam sites even bother to offer up a solution to alleviate the problem? Because the main criteria the ad review team uses is to guess whether the advertiser is a minor is by looking at the photo attached to the ad and making a judgement call as to whether they appear over or under 21. How inane is that? Eyeballing a photo and guessing the age of the person in it is criminally stupid at best. What training do the people running this company have? Did they attend the FBI criminal behavioral unit to determine that the person is clearly over the age of 18 or 21? Who posted the photo, how old the photo is, and whether the photo in the ad is actually of the person advertising adult services. Backpage and Craigslist Terms of Use don’t

Craig Newmark - CEO of Craigslist - #1 Pimp in America with friend Obama

Craig Newmark – CEO of Craigslist – #1 Pimp in America with friend Obama

prohibit users from posting on another’s behalf, or using another’s credit card to post the ad, a glaring omission given all the concern over pimps and traffickers advertising people for sexual services against their will. Nor does Backpage maintain a database of previously flagged images to automatically detect duplicates. Backpage’s critics maintain that a lot of the ads – and sex traffickers – will just go away if Backpage shuts down. Backpage claims that by shutting down their site, there would be no way to identify pimps and predators of which they claim by allowing these posts would not be able to be identified and thus would disappear and go underground. I see Backpage and Craigslist trying to win an argument on allowing their web site to remain active and not shut down purely on greed alone and meagerly not trying more to fix this problem by merely shutting down their personal ads. This is not simply an honorable a dating site but an outright pornography site that promotes trafficking and child porn! One where YOUR child gets allured to a predator and is lost forever and sometimes killed. Of all the victims of sex trafficking Back page and Craigslist account for a considerable amount of the millions that are part of these statistics. Every 5 minutes, a child goes missing. Human/Sex Trafficking is the largest industry next to the drug cartels and about to surpass that. Backpage contains a section for listing “adult entertainment” services even though they lie and say their site officially prohibits illegal services including prostitution but the site still contains listings explicitly for sex and known incidences of child sexual services being sold. The way I see it, if you promote it, any enterprise will only grow. If you do not, the enterprise will decline and hopefully die. If you cut out the cancer or treat it, the greater the chance the cancer will go away or not come back and if it does, you keep trying to fight it. Thou shall not be a victim, thou shall not be a perpetrator and thou shall not be a bystander. If more people got involved, there is also more strength in numbers. Awareness, education and action will prevail. Never let greed and corruption stand in the path of the safety of our children. Craig Newmark, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin are pimps and aiding and abetting crime. Simply put. They are profiteers of criminal enterprise. You cannot sugar coat it enough. If you are looking for a loved one, we can help! We  can profile whether or not your child fell victim to a predator on in the Internet if they wen missing and find them. www.thelost.net