by baldilocks

Or her.

Some entertainment to look forward to; and when I say entertainment, I mean war.

The White House anticipates a Democratic House will vote to impeach President Trump – but that his opponents won’t be able to muster the 67 Senate votes needed to throw him out of office.

Trump advisors in and outside the White House have begun speculating about scenarios months before voters even go to the polls for November elections that will be critical to what comes next for the Trump presidency.

If Democrats do take control of the chamber – which would fit traditional off-year patterns even as their edge in generic polls has narrowed in recent weeks – a far greater level of oversight and scrutiny is a certainty.

Impeachment also could follow, even as House leaders urge caution in speaking about it.

‘If we lose the House, it’s a given that they’ll try to get a vote to impeach,’ an outside Trump advisor told the Washington Examiner.

White House advisors expect impeachment to prevail in the House, according to the report.

Although a Democratic House could use its majority to vote to impeach Trump, essentially charging him with a high crime or misdemeanor, his fate would be determined by the Senate, where essentially a trial would occur.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi warned fellow lawmakers against their push for impeachment now, saying it could hurt the party’s chances of taking over.

I don’t think we should be talking about impeachment. I’ve been very clear right from the start,’ Pelosi told reporters last month.

Ms. Pelosi demonstrates a dim vestige of cunning, but we call all figure out what will happen if the Democrats regain the House, the Senate or both.

I thought about asking the rhetorical question: which high crime and/or misdemeanor? But then I remembered what Donald Trump’s true crime is in the eyes of the Organized Left: keeping Hillary R. Clinton from becoming President of the United States.

Certain quarters will never forgive DJT for that and that alone. They will continue to look for reasons — reasonable or not — to make him pay. Sad.

And dangerous.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

Image from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/democracychronicles/15933907480

I’m ecstatic to see that North Korea is not only talking about denuclearization, but is also willing to conduct direct negotiations with the U.S. and end the Korean War. In the past, it seemed all we ever got from North Korea was more demands with little promise of anything in return. Sure, it could all be a ruse, but I’m guessing that there is at least a little bit of genuine desire for peace.

Most people in the U.S. are probably thinking of a peace treaty and eventual reunified Korea, with the accompanying butterflies and rainbows. However, there are two darker aspects we should probably consider:
Continue reading “Some undesirable end states for Korea”

Michael Corleone: C’mon Frankie… my father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth.
Frank Pentangeli: Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth… but he never *trusted* Hyman Roth!

The Godfather part 2 1974

Trust but verity

Ronald Reagan

We are now seeing what happens when the US refuses to play the useful idiot for North Korea and China. War between North & South Korea may end before War between the MSM & Donald Trump

As long as the US could be counted on to pay every time China asked the North to rattle a saber the status quo was inevitable, but once the Trump administration made it clear that not only were they no longer paying but we were no longer going to be the chumps of China everything changed.

It’s now looking very possible that we will see an actual peace treaty between North and South Korea. If such a peace can be achieved then it should be done and if it IS done then Donald Trump will go down in history and the media and left will go absolutely insane.

All that being said I would be very careful about trusting the North Koreans about anything, particularly if I was the south. Yes it would be nice if the north recognized that they and the south were the same people of the same race and the same culture, but it’s also true that they were the same people, of the same race with the same culture when they first invaded the south in an attempt to impose communist rule.

Update: That’s gonna leave a mark

During a visit last year to Vietnam, I made the trek to Khe Sanh, one of the key battles during the Tet Offensive, which happened 50 years ago.

For most of the journey, I bristled at the Vietnamese guide and propagandist, who maintained Tet was a major victory for the Communist forces. I finally had enough and offered some facts to her and the tourists on the bus.

DaTech3.jpgSimply put, the coverage of the 1968 North Vietnamese attack is a startling example of how the U.S. media got it wrong. The media presented Tet as a major loss for the Americans when it actually was a massive defeat for North Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese government launched the offensive during Tet, the celebration of the Vietnamese New Year. The attacks began on January 30 on targets in Saigon and other Vietnamese cities, and ended a little more than a month later when Marines crushed the last resistance in the northern city of Hue.

As The Washington Post’s Saigon bureau chief Peter Braestrup documented in his book The Big Story, reporters systematically used Tet to turn the reality of a U.S. victory into an image of American and South Vietnamese defeat.

For example, journalists reported that that Vietcong had overrun five floors of the U.S. embassy when the VC never got inside the building. Newsweek’s coverage of the siege of Khe Sanh showed 18 photos out of a total of 29 of dead or wounded Marines or Marines huddling under cover, never mentioning that the Marines inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy.

That campaign of misrepresentation culminated in Walter Cronkite’s half-hour TV special on February 27, 1968, when he told his viewers that Tet had proved that America was “mired in a stalemate.”

Here are some important facts that got lost in the journalistic shuffle. The North Vietnamese Army lost 20 percent of its forces in the South and suffered 33,000 men killed in action for no military gain.

In his excellent book on the battle of Hue, Mark Bowden describes miscalculations on the part of the U.S. command but also the cynicism of the North Vietnamese command that was trying to win a public relations battle rather than a military victory. The Communists told many of their supporters that the goal was to launch a revolution when the government knew many would die. Simply put, the North Vietnam leadership was willing to lose thousands of soldiers to turn the PR tide.

The strategy worked as the international media misinterpreted what happened on the ground. Public support for the war dropped significantly after the misinformation about the Tet offensive.

As The New Republic put it recently: “The American public knew none of this, however. The misrepresentation by America’s most respected newsman and most trusted media outlets of what had actually happened during Tet stunned the American public and the body politic. Popular support for the war took a heavy hit, as the war’s critics now grabbed center stage….

“After Tet, American media had assumed a new mission for itself: to shape the nation’s politics by crafting a single coherent narrative, even if it meant omitting certain relevant facts and promoting other false or misleading ones. standing — just as they had convinced them a year earlier that America’s major victory was actually a major defeat.”

Sound familiar?

When the United States officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, reactions around the world were pretty much what everyone expected. Anti-Israel activists were up in arms from San Francisco to the EU. Muslim countries protested. Violence broke out in Israel. Mild objections came from some of our allies, including Saudi Arabia.

One of the most important reactions came from the Palestinians themselves who declared they would not negotiate for peace if the United States was involved. Surely the Trump administration knew this was likely, but they’ve been working on a peace agreement that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told European leaders he liked this weekend. Why work on a peace deal if one party isn’t going to acknowledge it? To answer this, we look back a couple of months to Mohammed bin Salman and Jared Kushner.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia met after an unannounced trip by President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law in October. It was widely reported their two days of face-to-face meetings were about an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This made little sense at the time because Saudi Arabia has been in favor of such an agreement for a long time. There’s no need to send Kushner for intense meetings unless they had more to discuss. Some (including I) have speculated that one topic of discussion was the “corruption purge” that happened days after Kushner left the Kingdom. It makes sense to coordinate stories ahead of a controversial move to eliminate any opposition to the next King of Saudi Arabia. Could they have also discussed Saudi Arabia’s role in a peace agreement?

There is no evidence of this that’s not circumstantial, but it’s easy to connect the dots once we look at it all as a whole. Saudi Arabia may be the perfect proxy for a Trump peace agreement to be presented to the Palestinians and Israelis. Netanyahu has already been told some of the details and seems potentially open to concessions in the agreement, a good sign if peace is to move forward. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas will not work with the United States, but will likely work with the Saudis as a proxy.

All of this means the Saudis may end up being the key to Middle East peace. Even if it’s the Trump administration that creates the plan and sells it to the Israelis, it’s the Saudis who may actually end up brokering the deal. Keep an eye on this in the coming months. Chances are strong this will move quickly once it’s officially rolling.

There were two trials recently for two men who were each accused of genocidal war crimes. The men were on opposite sides of a conflict. One man was sentenced to life in prison, one man will serve no time at all and is free to live his life however he pleases. One man massacred thousands of men, women and children in the most painful and horrible ways imaginable, the other man killed a bunch of the killers who had killed the aforementioned people, and he did so after having evacuated the women, children, and elderly from the area first. One man enjoyed the backing of the United States and western media, the other man has been labelled “The Butcher”.  Let’s have a closer look at both men and their deeds.

Ratko Mladic was sentenced to life in prison by a U.N. Yugoslav War Tribunal this week for actions he was held responsible for that took place in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.

Naser Oric was cleared of all charges for his war crimes last month, by a Bosnian court (that would be a court belonging to the same side as himself in the conflict). Via The Geller Report:

For years, I warned of the catastrophic consequences of President Bill Clinton’s regional Islamic nation-building, aiding and abetting the Bosnian Muslims against the Christian Serbs. Like President Carter backing the Ayatollah Khomeini against the pro-American Shah, the consequences of aiding and abetting Islamic movements are catastrophic. And here is more: on Monday, the Bosnian Muslim war criminal Naser Oric was acquitted of all charges of war crimes — by a Bosnian court.

This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. There is no doubt whatsoever that Oric led a number of massacres of Serbian civilians in the villages around Srebrenica over several years, killing more than 3,000 people. Some were crucified on trees, burned alive, tortured horribly. He even committed crimes against the Muslims in Srebrenica when he and his cronies controlled the town, but all is forgiven now: if you kill Serbian civilians, the international community doesn’t see it as a crime.   MORE

A 2008 photo essay by Peter North revealed a lot about the conflict in the former Yugoslavia that will never be covered by the mainstream media (there are VERY GRAPHIC images at the link):

The Real Srebrenica Genocide: The mass murder of Serbs in Srebrenica and Gorazde from 1992 to 1995 by Alija Izetbegovic’s Islamofascist terrorists

The real Srebrenica Genocide not reported by the corrupt, racist pro-Islamist-Nazi Western corporate-controlled media, was the brutal mass murder – using axes, knives, daggers, sledgehammers, iron bars, flamethrowers and explosives – of 3,870 Serbian elderly men, women and young children in and around the town of Srebrenica and its adjoining towns and villages(Bratunac,Skelani,Milici, et al) as well as the town of Gorazde. MUCH MORE HERE

A 2015 post from Pamela Geller shares an article from investigative reporter and historian Christopher J. Green which tells us more about what Ratko Mladec and Naser Oric are known to have done:

Muslim troops raped, disembowelled, beheaded and roasted alive their victims. Curiously, all of these atrocities were ignored by the Western media who had singled out the Serbs as being the aggressors from the very start of the war.

Proof of the diabolical crimes committed by Bosnian Muslims came from the commander of the UN peace keeping force General Philippe Morillon. He had personally seen the mutilated bodies of Serb civilians and in his testimony to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he stated Oric’s jihadists had carried out:

attacks during Orthodox holidays including Christmas Eve and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.

20 Years On – The Deception of Srebrenica Is Still Advancing Islamic Jihad

By Christopher J. Green – 07/16/2015

Saturday July 11th 2015 marked the twentieth anniversary of the massacre of Bosnian Muslims by Bosnian Serbs in the town of Srebrenica. The opportunity to indulge in an orgy of Serb-bashing by opportunist, self-serving politicians and the duplicitous media was simply too good to miss. They were all-too-keen to continue propagating one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated on the West, a deception that did so much to advance Islamic jihad. For Islam, Srebrenica is the gift that keeps on giving as you’ll now see.

Let’s start with the then President of the United States, the Democrat Bill Clinton. Speaking at a ceremony at Srebrenica to mark the anniversary, a sombre Mr. Clinton apologized for the amount of time it took for the necessary force to be brought against the Serbs.

The former President neglected to mention the two peace deals scuppered by the United States which would’ve prevented so much bloodshed, including the massacre at Srebrenica. In 1992, the peace deal brokered by Portuguese diplomat José Cutileiro known as “The Lisbon Agreement,” had been signed by all three warring factions in Bosnia: The Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims.

However, after meeting with US Ambassador Warren Zimmerman, the leader of the Bosnian Muslims Alija Izetbegovic disavowed his signature and made an avoidable war almost certain.

Mr. Clinton didn’t mention the scuppering of the Vance-Owen plan in January 1993 which occurred under his Presidency. Once again, all sides had agreed to the deal which divided territory on ethnic lines. US ambassador Warren Christopher encouraged the Bosnian Muslims to hold out for an additional four percent of territory. Due to his advice, the deal collapsed

Across the pond, British politician Sir Eric Pickles tweeted his sympathy for the victims of Srebrenica, foolishly comparing the “genocide” to the holocaust. He seems to forget Jews were not committing atrocities against Germans, unlike Muslims in Bosnia against the Serbs. But the accusation of genocide is also incorrect because the Serbs had evacuated women and the elderly from Srebrenica. This proves it was a massacre and not genocide yet facts like this are conveniently ignored by both politicians and the media.

Predictably, the mainstream media all regurgitated the tried-and-tested “Serbs were guilty of committing genocide against Muslims” false narrative just as they had done twenty years previously. When you read the reports, all of them focus on what happened in July 1995. They accuse the Serbs of besieging the town, kidnapping UN peace-keepers and forcing women and children to flee. The aim is still to portray the Muslims as the innocent victims of Serb hatred and brutality.

It’s true the Bosnian Serb army did besiege the town and yes, they did indeed hold UN peace-keepers hostage to prevent NATO from carrying out air strikes on Serb positions. But it was Bosnian Serb commander Colonel-General Ratko Mladic who gave the order to evacuate the women and the elderly from Srebrenica.

So, there was a massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995. The question begging to be asked is: What happened beforethe massacre occurred?

Srebrenica, a predominantly Muslim town, was designated as a “UN Safe Zone” defended by around 600 Dutch UN peacekeepers. Between 1992 and 1995, Bosnian Muslim forces were smuggling weapons into the protectorate, attacking Serb positions as well as using it as a base to launch attacks on surrounding Serb villages. During that time, Bosnian Muslim forces under the command of Naser Oric massacred an estimated two-thousand Serbs including women and children.

Oric’s Bosniak Muslim troops raped, disembowelled, beheaded and roasted alive their victims. Curiously, all of these atrocities were ignored by the Western media who had singled out the Serbs as being the aggressors from the very start of the war.

Proof of the diabolical crimes committed by Bosnian Muslims came from the commander of the UN peace keeping force General Philippe Morillon. He had personally seen the mutilated bodies of Serb civilians and in his testimony to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, he stated Oric’s jihadists had carried out:

attacks during Orthodox holidays including Christmas Eve and destroyed villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region.

So much for Srebrenica being a “safe zone.” Clearly the UN peacekeepers were failing in their duty and were complicit in these massacres. It’s also curious that the media neither at the time of the massacres or on the anniversary twenty years later make any mention of what happened in the lead up to the massacre at Srebrenica.

Are the Serbs innocent? Of course not and their massacre of Bosnian Muslims committed out of revenge is equally as deplorable as the massacres committed by Oric’s jihadists. But war is a very dirty business. In a war where all sides – Serbs, Croats and Muslims – committed atrocities, apportioning all the blame on one side is part of the crime. It must be said, the failure of the UN to stop a “safe zone” becoming a base for Muslim terrorists means they must shoulder a share of the blame for the massacres too.

Serbian lust for revenge wasn’t the only motive at work here. The Bosnian Muslims were desperate to get the United States on their side because they knew the US could urge NATO to intervene in what was a civil war. President Clinton was looking for an excuse to justify military intervention. Oric and his commanders knew when the Serbs took Srebrenica there would be reprisals for what he and his vicious band of jihadists had done. They also knew this would give the President his perfect reason to justify military intervention against the Serbs. Just before Srebrenica fell into Serb hands, Oric and his men left the town and abandoned the remaining Muslims to their terrible fate.

So far from being genocide, Srebrenica was a betrayal of Muslims by Muslims to bring NATO into the civil war. Muslims were sacrificed by their own people for this cause. It was a set-up and it worked even better than Oric imagined, fooling Western politicians like Bill Clinton and of course, the mass media who seized the opportunity to demonize the Serbs who were wrongly accused of committing genocide. A crime they are still being accused of to this day.

The deception led to NATO jets bombing Serb forces at Srebrenica, thus becoming the air force for Islamic jihad. Although the war in Bosnia is commonly believed to be a civil war, it wasn’t really. It was and still is part of the global Islamic jihad and it did so much to help Islam establish a foothold in central Europe. And the West aided and abetted it.

Maybe it also set the tone for the denial of the reality of Islam and jihad. Twenty years on from the deception of Srebrenica, it simply does not occur to most people in the West that the atrocities carried out by Muslim forces during the war in Bosnia are exactly the same atrocities Islamic State is carrying out against Christians in Iraq and Syria today. And if anyone dared suggest it, no doubt they’d be told “it’s nothing to do with Islam.”  MORE

Bare Naked Islam has more information about the demonization of the Serbs, the long and largely untold history of ethnic cleansing in The Balkans, and how Bill Clinton helped set the stage for ISIS in that region:

Fortunately, many western citizens no longer take Western mainstream media propaganda for granted as they did in 90’s and they are new alternative media which are breaking the monopoly of the western mainstream media.

Former chief NSA analyst: “Most of the Muslims killed in Srebrenica were soldiers who refused to surrender.”

 Unlike the Bosnian Muslim forces, the Bosnian Serb forces didn’t kill any of Srebrenica women, children and older people but instead bused them out to the main territory controlled by the Bosnian Muslim forces. During the debate in the UN Security council neo-con and US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power whined: ‘What’s next? Holocaust denial?’ In this way, Mrs. Power insulted the victims of Holocaust comparing a hoax civilian massacre in Srebrenica with the Nazi genocide against Jews and Slavs in WW2.The crimes committed by Bosnian Muslim forces were “extraordinary” and made the Serbs’ desire for revenge to be“inevitable.”

The media neglect of the massacres against Orthodox Christians in and around Srebrenica – and such leniency taken against Bosnian Muslim individuals who committed such crimes – not only leaves a sour taste – it is a falsification of history and covers up many untold stories which helps to dehumanize the Serbians. It also negates to share responsibility where it belongs – this applies to all parties who committed massacres. This also includes the United States and CIA which conveniently “overlooked” 8,000 of the most brutal and fanatical Islamists to enter Bosnia on false passports in order to slit the throats of Orthodox Christians.

The Bosnian Serbs might have had the heaviest weapons, but the Bosnian Muslims matched them in infantry skills that were much in demand in the rugged terrain around Srebrenica. As the snow cleared in the spring of 1995, it became obvious to Nasar Oric, the man who led the Bosnian Muslim fighters that the Bosnian Serb army was going to attack Srebrenica to stop him from attacking Serb villages. So he and a large number of his fighters slipped out of town. Srebrenica was left undefended with the strategic thought that, if the Serbs attacked an undefended town, surely that would cause NATO and the UN to agree that NATO air strikes against the Serbs were justified. And so the Bosnian Serb army strolled into Srebrenica without opposition.”

The brutal civil wars throughout the former Yugoslavia led to the ethnic cleansing of Serbians in Krajina. However, not only was nothing done about this, the Croatian forces who did this had been backed by America and other nations during the conflict.

Also, the ghosts of past Muslim SS Units who supported Nazi Germany alongside Croatian fascists, was still etched into the memory because the events of World War Two were never reconciled under communist rule after the war. Therefore, with this, and the Ottoman Muslim past of enslaving young Orthodox Christian boys and then converting them to Islam – then the fear was not based on myths or on distant memories.

By glossing over the massacres of 3,500 Orthodox Christians in and around Srebrenica; the role of the United States in turning a blind eye to 8,000 international Islamists (some members who did September 11 had learnt much in Bosnia); the actions of the Bosnian Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic, in abandoning the Muslim enclave; and other important factors. It entails that Srebrenica is being manipulated for all the wrong reasons and that the dehumanization of the Serbians is a convenient way for Western powers to gloss over the reality on the ground. It also suits the Bosnian Muslim leadership which abandoned the enclave despite fighting against fellow Muslims in the west.

It also should be remembered that Bosnian Muslim forces had slaughtered thousands of Christians first in the surrounding region of Srebrenica and that the “safe haven” was abused. Military generals from the international community who were in Bosnia state this clearly, and Morillon testified in court.”

The over simplification of major media outlets shames the mass media in general because the same cover up and lack of basic facts, are still being told by major international media agencies. Indeed, the coverage and headlines in some media outlets is bordering on anti-Serbian racism. Also, to gloss over the events of what happened prior to the Bosnian Serbs entering Srebrenica is not merely shoddy journalism, it is open manipulation and propaganda.  MORE HERE

Two men on opposing sides of a conflict, and while both killed lots of people, the guy who evacuated the elderly and women and children (from the opposing side) to protect them from getting killed goes to jail forever for “war crimes” and the guy who had everyone on the opposing side (including the elderly and women, and children) brutally tortured, mutilated, burned alive, crucified and massacred gets away with it. Nothing to see here folks, move along – and if you think there is something wrong with how “justice was served” in the cases of these men then you must be an islamophobe or something and are very likely guilty of thought crimes.

*******

MJ Stevenson, AKA Zilla, is best known on the web as Zilla at MareZilla.com. She lives in a woodland shack near a creek, in one of those rural parts of New York State that nobody knows or cares about, with her family and a large pack of guardian companion animals. 

A few days ago amid reports that there was cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia the kingdom felt compelled to make the following statement

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir on Moday denied any ties between the kingdom and Israel.

“There are no relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” Jubeir told Egypt’s CBC television, according to a translation by the Ynet news website.

The Irony of Saudi Arabia, the keeper of the most sacred site in Islam’s, need to continue to openly declare Israel unsuitable for open contact and the Arab world’s embrace of such an attitude is best illustrated by telling the story of two Mosques.

In 705 AD the Al Aqsa Mosque was built in the City of Jerusalem at the site of the Temple Mount which was the location of the Temple of Solomon the holiest site in Judaism. Other than for a 200 year stretch during the 11th & 12th centuries it has continued to function as a Mosque. Even after Israel conquered Jerusalem during the six day war, the Jewish state, rather than demolishing the Mosque and rebuilding the sacred temple not only allowed the Mosque to continue to function as a place of worship for Islam but has left its administration to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf an Islamic religious trust. Furthermore they have severely punished attempts by both Christian and Jewish fanatics to demolish or destroy the Mosque and to this day Muslims continue to worship there.

Four hundred years after the building of the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jersualem the Great Mosque of al-Nuri was built in the city of Mosul. It was famous for its leaning minaret. The World Monuments fund, an international non-profit dedicated to the preservation of historic architecture, describes the minaret:

Known by locals as al-Hadba’, or the hunchback, because of its pronounced tilt, the minaret of the Great Mosque of al-Nuri was a prominent landmark of the old city of Mosul. Built under the Seljuk ruler Nur al-Din, it was part of a religious complex that included a mosque and a madrassa and was named after its patron. The minaret, built in 1172, was 45 meters tall, decorated with ornamental brickwork along its cylindrical shaft and square base. Five times a day a muezzin would ascend the spiral stairway and sing the call to prayer from the balcony. By the time the famous Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta visited the city in the fourteenth century, the minaret was already listing noticeably and had been given its nickname, which remained ever since. In the 1940s, as part of a renovation campaign sponsored by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities, the mosque and the madrassa were dismantled and rebuilt according to a new plan. But the minaret remained as one of the few original elements of the medieval complex, a landmark of Mosul, towering over the low cityscape. So iconic was the minaret that since 2003 its figure has adorned the Iraqi 10,000-dinar banknote.

In fact it’s significance was such that its preservation was an international cause:

In 2012, UNESCO and the Governorate of Nineveh agreed to collaborate on a project to study and conserve the al-Hadba’ Minaret. The launch of a project that would have resulted in the stabilization of the minaret was announced in 2014,

It was as Austin Bay’s piece on the defeat of ISIS in Mosul a symbol of Islam in the city

For eight centuries, the building symbolized Mosul, which is why, in June 2014, ISIS senior commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed the ISIS caliphate from a Grand Mosque balcony. Speaking freely in the great house of worship demonstrated Al-Baghdadi’s control of Mosul. As an internet propaganda tool, video of his declaration confirmed he was a caliph, the religious-political ruler of an expanding militant Islamist territorial state.

I say “was” because on June 21st one of the final acts of the Islamic state occupation was the deliberate destruction and demolition of this landmark Mosque.

On Wednesday night, with the terrorist group on the cusp of losing control of Mosul and with it its claim to a caliphate straddling the border of Iraq and Syria, Islamic State fighters packed the building with explosives and took it down.

Now mind you, the Mosque wasn’t taken down by indirect fire or reduced while being defended by fighters using it as a fortress or even accidentally blasted away by aired bombing. It was deliberately targeted and destroyed by supposedly devout Muslims Austin Bay again:

In retrospect, the mosque’s obliteration was indisputable evidence of terrorists’ political nihilism. ISIS leaders really worship power and if they cannot seize power and hold it, then they will destroy Muslim shrines and cities as well as murder human beings en masse.

Now granted that the Islamic state is an enemy of the Saudis and few if any arab governments support it but the obvious question is this.

If Israel is, as Arab governments, BDS campaigners and leftists all over the west claim, the great foe and oppressor Islamic people in general and “Palestinians” in particularly, how is it that they treat an Islamic holy site and those who worship there with more care and reverence than devout Muslims?

The State Sponsor of Terror List needs more teeth. In its current form, the list only leverages three elements of national power (diplomatic, informational, and economic). It is time to discuss changing this reality by adding the fourth and final element of national power.

On November 2nd  the State Department failed to meet a congressional deadline. Their task is to determine whether the United States should relist North Korea on the State Sponsor of Terror List. President Trump will announce a decision at the end of his current Pacific diplomatic visits.

It may come as a surprise to most Americans that North Korea is not currently on this list. They were removed by the Bush administration in 2008 in a forlorn hope that the North Korean dictatorship then under Kim Jong-il would honor new denuclearization options in exchange for their removal from the list. As anyone with common sense and a rudimentary understanding of that region’s history should know, that did not work. Also unchanged is the Kim dynasty’s sponsorship of international terrorist movements who actively target the west, especially the United States and its interests.

This discussion, however, provides an opportunity to reconsider the usefulness of the State Sponsor of Terror List in its current form. There are three countries identified on the current list: Iran, Sudan and Syria. They have all been on this list for many years, and they have not changed their behavior in any tangible fashion. In fact, one could argue that all of them, and most certainly Iran, have accelerated their support for terrorist organizations.

Why? Listing a nation as a state sponsor of terror results in automatic diplomatic and economic sanctions, and such actions have next to no impact on leaders of nations who simply don’t care. Certainly, adding North Korea to this list will do almost nothing to them we are not already doing. Can we impose further diplomatic or economic sanctions than those already imposed due to their withdrawal from the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and their pursuit of ballistic missile delivery systems for their nuclear warheads? The obvious answer is, “No.”

The United States must alter its current policy to include the military element of national power. We must include the stated right to immediately, and without warning, retaliate against any state sponsor of terror in any fashion the US deems appropriate, up to and including the use of our own nuclear arsenal. Such an attack will be triggered as a response to a terrorist attack against our nation, its people, or our allies so long as the terrorist organization is shown to receive any support (arms, money, training, safe harbor, etc.) from a state sponsor on the list. This will provide a level of deterrence that currently does not exist.

Some may argue such a change would be extreme. I, however, would argue it is in our survival interest to do this quickly. Technology has progressed to where even third world dictators like Kim Jon-un are able to acquire weapons that can kill tens of millions, destroy hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure, contaminate our food sources, attack our economic infrastructure, shut down national electric grids, etc. Our enemies are all pursuing some or all of these technologies. It is very possible, and arguably probable, that at some point one of these nations will consider providing such a weapon to a terrorist organization they believe they can control. We need to insure they think long and hard before doing so.

This is a narrowly defined policy change. It would only apply to those nations who we place on the list. The State Sponsor of Terror List will then have a level of importance it currently does not, both for nations added and for those who are removed.

We need to stop giving the state sponsors of terror a pass while they conduct war by proxy against the US and its allies. Change our policy, and place North Korea on this list.

There has been a real debate on if foreign born Terrorist Sayfullo Saipovv should be sent to Gitmo or not. The debate has been interesting because you have the sight of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, favorites of Democrats and the left, reminding said leftists why they are still republicans, namely they are in favor of treating the enemies of the United States as…enemies of the United States and that’s not allowed in the Democrat Party anymore (See Iran).

It is however a fair argument to make that he was a legal immigrant who committed a crime and thus should go to the justice system, and in other circumstances that would be a good argument, but unfortunately we are at war with ISIS and we have an excellent precedent for a situation like this in via one of the most crafty pols ever to hold a General’s Rank in the US Army. General Benjamin Butler.

At a time in the Civil War when Lincoln was not talking emancipation in order to hold the border states Benjamin Butler, who tended to do things his own way, decided that returning fugitive slaves only helped the enemy and decided against it declaring them “contraband of war”. At one point he was questioned over it by a fellow officer from Virginia if he didn’t feel obliged to return slaves under the Fugitive Slave Law. (Butler was known to be sympathetic to the south before the war but a vapid anti secessionist.) Butler answer was classic:

…the Fugitive Slave act did not effect a foreign country, which Virginia claimed to be! And she must reckon one the infelicities of her position that insofar at least she was taken at his word.

I think the same logic works here. If a CNN analyst argues that, as a legal immigrant, Sayfullo Saipovv retains the rights of any other person arrested in the United States, including the right to a civilian trial and is not subject to being sent to Gitmo, the answer I would give the rights of a legal immigrant do not apply to soldiers of ISIS taken in battle, which Mr. Saipovv claims to be and to paraphrase General Butler He must reckon one of the infelicities of his positions that insofar at least he is taken at his word.

If they counter that in this case as a prisoner of way Mr. Saipovv must be treated in accordance to the Geneva Convention we can reply that as the Islamic State is neither a signatory to the Geneva Convention in fact nor a practitioner of its rules in action any member of ISIS taken in battle is subject to be held as an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo if the Army or the commander in chief should so desire.

And I’d bet real money that once, President Donald Trump, who know a winning issue when he see it, figures this out that this one is a gimmie, he will desire it pretty damn quick.

Closing thought: There was a time that I would have believed that the Harvey Weinstein Democrat Left would not be so tone deaf as to insist that a man who declares himself a woman must be treated as such but a man who declares himself a warrior for ISIS must not. But the last few years have been an education and I can’t wait to see Democrat Senate Candidates in Red States forced to make the choice between supporting sending Mr. Saipovv going to gitmo and upsetting the democrat base or opposing it and upsetting general election voters.

Another day, another terror attack by a Muslim screaming Allahu Akhbar and another batch of media stories about that fabled Muslim Backlash that like global warming putting US coastal cities underwater never seems to happen.

Ahmad’s question was answered.

My biggest concern is that he’s readily identified as a Muslim and then that is extrapolated out to my own faith,” he said.

In the wake of Tuesday’s attack, some Muslim Americans and community leaders expressed concerns over how their religion would be perceived and whether Muslims would become targets of violence.

Despite the lack of a backlash over the last 17 year Ahmad and many like him, according to NBC and others are still very worried, but there is an easy solution to allay his fears.

This may seem counterintutative to some but the people who will most benefit from extreme vetting are people like Ahmad. Muslim Americans.

You see as long as the vetting of immigrants is suspect Jihadist will keep getting in and as long as Jihadist keep getting in to attack American Muslims like Ahmad will find themselves suspected.

However if vetting of immigrants is extreme enough to keep potential jihadists out by definition there are less potential Islamic terrorists here, and people’s confidence that American Muslims aren’t here to make jihad against the US increases. If that is combined with American Muslims vetting their own communities for either radical imam’s trying to radicalize communities or individuals who might get radicalized online that will really change the picture.

In the end every jihadist that Trump’s program keeps out is insurance against Muslim American’s fears of a backlash.

Because of this they should be the first to come out and say: “We Muslim Americans support extreme vetting because as far as we are concerned Jihadist and Radical Islamists are not welcome here. After all many of us came here to get away from that kind of thing.”

The day such an anouncement is made on behalf of the American Muslim community is the beginning of the end of the war on terror.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)