The Hardest of Choices


Justin Smith writes about the nuclear tensions between North Korea and the United States. The Leftist MSM is quick to blame President Trump for escalating the tensions EVEN THOUGH the entire escalation threat is from Communist dictator Kim Jong Un.

 

JRH 8/14/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Hardest of Choices

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/13/2017 4:40 PM

 

America is left only the hardest of choices to deal with a nuclear armed and belligerent North Korea, that recently fired another intercontinental ballistic missile on July 28th (10:45 pm EST) from Jagang province, the latest in a score of tests over the past year, with an approximate range of 6000 miles. America cannot tolerate an ever expanding and improving nuclear arsenal, under Kim Jong Un, an irrational and unstable dictator, who murdered his uncle in December 2013 and his half-brother in February of this year: and, while a bloody conventional war isn’t sought by America and South Korea, America cannot afford to do nothing and risk a massive loss of life in a future nuclear conflagration.

 

On August 7th, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs released a new poll, that revealed 90 percent of Americans “reject the idea that North Korea should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons”, 75 percent view North Korea’s nuclear weapons systems as a “critical threat facing the United States”, and 62 percent would support the use of U.S. troops to defend South Korea from North Korea. They are right to be concerned.

 

North Korea has a long history of brash, reckless chutzpah and violent aggression towards the United States and South Korea, long after the Armistice was signed on July 27th, 1953. In some of the more recent cases, the world saw the North Korean navy fire on the South Korean navy in South Korea’s own territorial waters on November 10th, 2009; North Korea fired over 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island that injured 19 and killed four South Koreans, on November 23rd, 2010, and they even sneaked across the border in 2015 and planted land-mines that maimed two South Korean soldiers.

 

Ryan Mauro’s August 9th article for the Clarion Project revisits reports that detail North Korea’s alliance with Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamofascists in general. In 2009, two thousand detonators and 35 tons of rockets, shoulder-fired missiles and equipment for surface-to-air-missiles were intercepted on two separate occasions. They were coming from North Korea to Iran for distribution to Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups in Thailand. North Korea states that it “fully supports” the Palestinian jihad, and North Korea has also regularly armed the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines for many decades.

 

It is also worth noting that the USS Pueblo, a Banner-class environmental ship attached to Navy Intelligence, was attacked and captured by the North Korean navy on January 23rd, 1968. The USS Pueblo still sits on the Taedong River near Pyongyang, North Korea, as a tool for anti-American propaganda and a monument to North Korea’s ” courage and bravery”.

 

Once North Korea’s nuclear weapons systems are fully capable, what happens when North Korea threatens to nuke a U.S. city or one of our allies, unless some unreasonable demand is met, like reunifying Korea under their control? If they threaten us with nuclear destruction, unless we stay out of the South China Sea, an international trade route, what are we to do? Prepare for nuclear war?

 

Reports from Japan’s annual defense review and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency’s analysis last month indicate that North Korea has succeeded in miniaturizing nuclear warheads enough to mount them on their missiles, including its long-range missiles that are now able to hit America’s mainland. This has been North Korea’s goal from day one of the Armistice, and the pace of their breakthroughs hold far reaching consequences and threatens to bring war.

 

To date, North Korea has not perfected reentry of its missiles, and its latest missile launch caught fire and disintegrated, as it plummeted to earth. Most U.S. analysts and experts believe they will have this problem solved by next year.

 

After the July 28th ICBM test, President Donald Trump presented a case for sanctions to the United Nations, because he has warned North Korea numerous times, and he is unwilling to tolerate this situation. China, Russia and the entire United Nations Security Council voted unanimously, 15-0, to place strong economic and trade sanctions on this rogue nation, but North Korea has remained ever defiant and threatened to take revenge on the United States, illustrating sanctions won’t work.

 

In one of their first statements, the North Korean Army described Andersen Air Force Base on Guam as a “beachhead” for a potential U.S. invasion of North Korea, that would be one of their targets. While this sounds like a defensive tact, it also suggests that they have obviously considered a first strike on America, her allies and her territories. They proclaimed that they will create an “enveloping fire” in areas around Guam.

 

Sitting next to Melania, his wife, at his golf course in Bedminster, N.J. on August 8th, President Trump stated (reported by Associated Press): “North Korea had best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

 

This warning is not worrying the upper echelons of North Korea’s military, who seem to be fully on board with Kim Jong Un’s malevolent and maniacal vision, as General Kim Rak Gyom suggested that President Trump was “getting on (their) nerves”. They are unwilling or unable to accurately assess the risks of their actions. It’s as if they have no sense of America’s alarm over their actions or any belief that America will retaliate with force.

 

North Korea has even threatened to sell nuclear weapons to America’s enemies and international terrorist groups. They could easily sell off a few, since they will have nearly 100 by 2020.And it is not out of the realm of possibility that they could facilitate a nuclear attack on America, by an Islamic terrorist group, and claim it wasn’t them.

 

Will our government still be trying to negotiate on the day that one or more nuclear devices, stamped “Made in North Korea”, make America’s horizon a glowing inferno?

 

The time for talking and negotiating has long passed, and the hardest of choices lies ahead, while an irrational Kim Jong Un becomes increasingly bellicose with each significant nuclear armament success. Seventeen years of talk from feckless American leaders has placed this choice before us. Rather than accept nuclear weapons capable of striking the heart of America, in the hands of an American-hating rogue nation with a history of arming terrorists, President Donald Trump must resort to a lightening swift preemptive strike at the heart of North Korea, utilizing the Mother of All Bombs and tactical nuclear weapons on every military position, nuclear facility and Pyongyang too…

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links by both Justin Smith and the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

 

Religion & Government-


No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

 

Interesting thoughts from “christine andme” at the G+ Community The United States Of America – 2ND REVOLUTION on my post ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’ posted at the NCCR blog.

 

Her thoughts are based on a 12/2016 video essay by the Youtube channel Call of Duty Goddess. The video title is “How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam”.

 

To the Shores of Tripoli

 

The Call of Duty Goddess outlines very coherently how Islam is incompatible with American Constitutional Law. She brings President Jefferson into her line of thinking based on the first Barbary Pirate was that occurred during Jefferson’s Administration. You should take the time to Google the two Barbary Pirate wars on which Jefferson failed to bring a total victory for the USA. Jefferson’s military action was successful but instead of forcing a complete capitulation from the Muslim pirates, Jefferson tried a diplomatic mission thinking like a Westerner and tried a peace that attempted a mutual common good. Meaning Jefferson gave cash and more to the Muslims and in return the U.S. received some freed American slaves (as in White people captured) and American prisoners. Jefferson’s largesse only temporarily placated the Muslim pirates because they upped their raids of American ship again including making crew and passengers slaves and/or prisoners.

 

The video’s is a bit misleading because there was no 1786 law prohibiting the practice of Islam on American shores. Rather the Call of Duty Goddess using an experience that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a meeting between then Ambassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adj, Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain to fellow Ambassador John Jay. Jefferson quotes the Tripoli Ambassador informing:

 

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Obama Could Learn From Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 Response to Muslims During the Barbary Coast War; By Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers; 10/14/14)

 

The Call of Duty Goddess (and apparently several other historical pieces I have perused) believes this early experience with Islam was the push that the later President Jefferson to take military action against the Barbary Pirates.

 

After outlining the incompatibility of Islam with the American Constitution coupled with Jefferson’s presumed mindset on Islam, the Call of Duty Goddess this is the reasoning there is a Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

 

I can only concur with the Call of Duty Goddess ONLY in the sense that government is separated from religion, BUT religion is not separate from being an influence on government. AND since a significant majority of the Founding Fathers (yes even American Deists like Jefferson) were quite amiable to Judeo-Christian morality, this was the influence expected to keep America good.

 

Since christine mentions Slovakia banning Islam in her post, I thought I’d provide a bit of an update on the Slovakia law. It is true such a ban was passed by the Slovakian legislature on 11/30/16. However, Slovakia’s President Andrej Kiska vetoed the Slovakian legislature on 12/20/16. Fox News reports on 1/31/17 that the Slovakian legislature overrode Kiska’s veto.

 

JRH 8/8/17

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

By christine andme

August 7, 2017

The United States of America – 2nd Revolution

 

I totally agree with the main point of that message.

I want to mention one interesting notion regarding ‘separation of church and state’. The creator of the below video believes it was meant to protect Americans from religions such as Islam. That became law in 1786, which was the same year Thomas Jefferson met with ‘barbaric pirates’ to discuss the jizya (tax that infidels had to pay to Muslims) which was as large as 6% of total budget then. Jefferson studied Koran and figured Islam is intertwined with politics because it comes with Sharia law, and that pushed founding fathers to establish the law to ‘separate church and state’. The video publisher says that is her opinion, and actually that notion is the supporting argument of hers to ultimately assert ‘U.S. passed a law in 1786 to ban Islam from being registered as a religion’ ‘just as Slovakia recently did’.

I have heard that ‘separation of church and state’ is meant that churches wanted to make sure that government would not interfere with churches, which I believed. I also agree that what ACLU etc. is trying to do is simply wrong based on their misinterpretation of the 1st amendment. I don’t know why the factor of Islam has not been discussed by more scholars (well, I think I know: it is the same reason why the fact that Jihad killed 270 million people has not been taught in the US History textbooks…) Anyway, I thought ‘Islam’ being one reason for the ‘separation of church and state’ was interesting perspective.
VIDEO: How America Passed a Law to Ban Islam

 

Posted by  Call of Duty Goddess

Published on Dec 3, 2016
Slovakia Passes Law to BAN ISLAM from Being Registered as a Religion
http://freedomoutpost.com/slovakia-passes-law-to-ban-islam-from-being-registered-as-a-religion/

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islam-governing-under-sharia

Islam 101 – 7 – Sharia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdKSgIwK_6U

Understanding Islamic Law
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/52-understanding-islamic-law.html

Muslims Want Sharia Law in Non-Muslim Countries Robert Spencer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FpDCZdvHk [Blog Editor: This Youtube account was terminated by Youtube]

YOUR RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom [Blog Editor: Always be wary of ACLU hatred of Christianity]

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

Religion and the Founding of the American Republic [Pt 2]
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01-2.html

Cornerstone Documents in Virginia and American History: An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
https://youtu.be/KwAxl701RUo

THE TRUTH OF THE MARINE CORP ANTHEM AND THE UNITED STATES WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM
https://whtwolf74.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/the-truth-of-the-marine-corp-anthem-and-the-united-states-war-with-radical-islam/

Image 2 of American Peace Commissioners to John Jay, March 28, 1786
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.005_0430_0433/?sp=2

When Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’an
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/03/26/when-thomas-jefferson-read-the-quran/

 

___________________

Religion & Government-

No Government Influence, but Plenty of Religious People Influence Toward Government

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2017

__________________

Agreeing with Main Point- ‘Fallacy of Church/State Separation’

 

Blog Editor: The title is by the Editor. Christine’s post is edited. Text and links in the video quoted material enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

Antifa: What Do You Want? Something For Nothing?


Justin Smith sent a submission that he termed his rant against Antifa. The Antifa groups are Leftist anarchists that use violence and intimidation to make the rule of law ungovernable. I am absolutely on board with Justin’s very justifiable venting against the American Leftist to transform America by any means necessary.

 

JRH 5/7/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Antifa: What Do You Want? Something For Nothing?

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/6/2017 11:37 AM

 

The “AntifaFASCIST protestors who took to the streets of America during the past few weeks and in Nashville, TN on May 1st — part of a movement that’s growing in the U.S. — are the same people who are constantly demanding that government give them more entitlements and less work. These aren’t rebels; they’re willing participants in a perpetual government charade. These days, real rebels fight for the freedom to be left alone.

 

The reason why these so-called “anti-fascists” aren’t willing to fight for true independence is that they want to cherry-pick the nature of government intervention in their lives. They want the nanny-state to take care of them, but they also want to dictate its red lines. It’s like raising a great white shark and then trying to teach it how to swim with you. And with the Progressive Communists of the Democratic Party facilitating and tacitly approving these anti-American bastard’s violence and treason, we’re at the “this thing had better not chew through its’ harness” phase of the swimming lesson.

 

I pray I’m wrong. I see a massive Civil War in America’s future. [Blog Editor – 2nd Civil War Perspectives by author name: Dennis Prager, Daniel Lang and Jeff Vandaveer]

 

What do You want? Something for nothing?

 

We all have the Right to go about our daily lives and work for the things we want. With 100 million on welfare, most who are able-bodied and gaming the welfare system, no one is truly “poor” in any real sense of the word — not when they all have cellphones and half of them are hittin’ 200lbs from too many potato chips and donuts.

 

You want to see really poor and starving people? Just look at Venezuela where the Socialist system has run out of OTHER PEOPLE’s money and the people are STARVING TO DEATH IN THE STREETS OR BEING SLAUGHTERED BY THOSE IMMORAL ENOUGH TO SIMPLY MURDER AND ROB FOR WHAT THEY WANT.

 

Your Antifa is funded by Alliance for Global Justice, Refuse Fascism, the Tides Foundation and billionaire George Soros. These are ALL COMMUNISTS, and Your tactics surely do not appear to be “fighting fascism”. You ARE THE FASCISTS and Communists My Father fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

 

Socialism and Communism NEVER HAVE worked SINCE February 1848. In Their WAKE LIE 120 MILLION TORTURED AND MURDERED VICTIMS OF THEIR FLAWED AND FAILED IDEOLOGY.

 

Whether You comprehend it or not, Our Constitutional Republic has created more economic prosperity and individual liberty for MORE AMERICANS AND PEOPLE WORLDWIDE THAN ANY OTHER SYSTEM IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND. AND THAT IS A PROVEN, VERIFIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.

 

Your group is seeking change simply for the sake of change, while being manipulated by the Communist Internationale. If You truly stand for Freedom and Liberty You will leave Antifa and set Your sights on stopping the Progressive Communist Statists in BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES, who seek to control over every aspect of All Our lives, and circumvent and subvert the U.S. Constitution through legislative tyranny and rules within bureaucracies.

 

Eradicate the Federal Reserve Bank, back Our currency with Gold or Silver again, Kill the Income Tax and the IRS, and withdraw from the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and great economic strides will readily occur for all Americans as Our economy once again could thrive as intended.

 

But if Antifa seeks war with honest God-fearing American citizens, who love this country and their Families and have a strong understanding of the reasons Our constitutional republic is still the BEST Thing going, then I aim to stack Antifa bodies ten feet high to the Left and Right of me and ALL Around for as FAR as the Eye Can See.

 

God Bless All Who Fight for Freedom and Individual Liberty and God Bless Our Beloved America.

 

de Oppresso Liber** — Deus Vult***

On My Honor and On My Life

 

Justin O. Smith

 

[Blog Editor:

 

** de Oppresso Liber: In the United States Army Special Forces, the motto is traditionally believed to mean “to free from oppression” or “to liberate the oppressed” in English. (Wikipedia)

 

*** Deus Vult: (Classical Latin for “God wills“) … Christian motto that has been used throughout the history of Western Christianity.[1]

 

It originates in Christian Bible as a declaration by Saint PaulDeus vult omnes homines salvos fieri,”—”God willeth all men to be saved.”[2] (Wikipedia)]

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source Links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Only Moral Choice


Intro to ‘The Only Moral Choice

John R. Houk Editor

By Justin O. Smith

Posted 4/10/17

 

Syria is an enigma to American Foreign Policy, National Interests and National Security. Just about any action along a policy choice is a damned if we do or damned if we don’t.

 

There is no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal and nefarious dictator that butchers the Sunni majority in his nation. YET much of the Sunni majority is fractured under the control of Islamic terrorist entities that are just as if not more so brutal than Assad. AND the Sunni rebel militias that claim no affiliation to the Islamic terrorists are less organized and/or unreliable in their moderate assertions.

 

Military action taken by President Trump against the Assad controlled airbase that launched a chemical weapon attack on the civilians of Khan Sheikhoun was quite proportional as a warning against continued chemical WMD attacks.

 

AND YET Syria took advantage of Russia and Iran’s version of a redline warning against the U.S. claiming (or pretending) they’d retaliate for their little/widdle client if more military action is forthcoming.

 

I do like Justin Smith’s analysis of the Syrian enigma as relating President Trump’s proportional response to a chemical weapon attack.

 

JRH 4/10/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Only Moral Choice

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/9/2017 1:29 PM

 

Making the only moral choice and protecting the United States vital interests, President Donald Trump ordered the first direct U.S. attack on Syria in six years, in response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of a sarin gas nerve-agent on his own people and the images of little children dying and foaming at the mouth, on April 6th 2017. While President Trump seemed to act solely out of humanitarian concern, his decision sent a clear message around the world and to all America’s enemies, that the United States is back, strong as it ever once was, and willing to act with its military might should it prove necessary.

 

On Tuesday, April 4th, U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies tracked Syrian SU-22 jets leaving Al Shayrat Airbase, for Idlib Province, where one jet dropped a sarin bomb in the middle of Kahn Sheikhoun. Eighty-seven people were killed, including 26 children, and 546 more were deathly sick and injured.

 

Approximately 600,000 Syrians have been killed by conventional warfare in the Syrian Civil War, but Assad’s use of sarin changed the entire world’s view of the situation. The horrors of chemical weapons used in WWI have long convinced civilized nations to ban their use through treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, because they kill everyone within range in a most horrific manner.

 

Unlike former President Obama, whose fear created failed policies, President Trump did something tangible to respond to Assad’s atrocities, even after Russia warned the United States against any strike on Syria at the United Nations, and at 8:40 p.m. EST 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from the destroyers USS Ross and USS Porter. They hit Al Shayrat’s infrastructure in Homs Province, air defense systems and ammunition bunkers, and they destroyed approximately 25 aircraft of the 7th Wing of the Syrian Air Force.

 

After the cruise missile strikes, President Trump stated: “No child of God should suffer such horror. … It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. … We pray … for the souls of those who passed … Good night and God Bless America and the entire world.”

 

Most of the world’s nations embraced President Trump’s missile strike as a necessary move, and Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said the action was “an appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack.” France, Italy and Israel also welcomed the strikes.

 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated. Israel fully supports President Trump’s decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime’s horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere.”

 

While an originalist reading of Constitution has many in the public and in Congress questioning President Trump’s authority to use immediate military force to counter foreign threats, President Trump’s action against Assad’s heinous sarin attack, undertaken as a second step to prevent the spread and repeated use of chemical weapons, is perfectly consistent with the Constitution, especially so, since U.S. troops are in nearby proximity. In the relevant part of the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1973, the President is permitted to launch a military act on his own, as long as he notifies or consults Congress within 48 hours. Trump acted within these guidelines.

 

However, America would do well to recall that U.S. Presidents like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the rise of the Islamofascists, like the Ayatollah Khomeini and the subsequent Iranian nuclear program, embedding Hamas in the Palestinian territories; and most recently, Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed the Arab [Islamic, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda] Spring and their “democracy” initiative, which has toppled one strong man after another, undoing the entire Middle East and paving the way for the Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria and creating general chaos.

 

Without oil resources, Syria has never really been of too much concern to the United States, other than being a thorn in our side due to its alliance with Iran, support of Islamofascist Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, confirmed in 2007. It doesn’t seek to control the Persian Gulf or dominate the region, unlike Iran.

 

It should be noted here, that generals of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have said they stand prepared to retaliate against America for its strike on Al Shayrat. They claim to have thousands of Iranian “sleeper agents” in the U.S. just waiting for a call to arms.

 

Assad’s opposition is primarily the Islamofascists of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State, and if they gain control of Syria, the country and its people will face even more heinous atrocities. The Syrian Free Army is no much better, being comprised of anti-American, pro-Hamas Muslims, who are content to accept U.S. funding, if it can place them in control of Syria.

 

Due to the Muslim Brotherhood’s own brutal nature, their brutality has been met with extreme overkill measures, since the Baath Party rose to power in Syria in 1963. In 1982, a Sunni Islamist rebellion was murderously crushed by Bashar’s father, Hafez Assad, that left 20,000 people dead. Bashar’s insane use of sarin gas is the last crime against humanity by a desperate despot.

 

Prior to the uprising in Deraa [aka Daraa] in March 2011, Syria had become a proper nation-state with a sense of Saryana (Syrianhood) that had never before existed, and it was evident it Syria’s literature, television, journalism and its own version of Arabic. Assad’s regime had improved access to higher education and health care services, and he had helped to create a new urban middle class with Western-style political aspirations. Agriculture and handicraft industries had revived and were unrestrained by the government. And the Christian population flourished under Assad’s secular authoritarian regime. This all changed through international interference.

 

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said President Vladimir Putin views the U.S. strike as an “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law [that] deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations”.

 

Just how wonderful has Russia turning a blind-eye to Syria’s sarin stock been for U.S.-Russia relations? Russia supposedly assisted in the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons stores, but since 2015, Russia has repeatedly obfuscated evidence of new chemical attacks by Assad’s regime.

 

A few hours before the strike, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley stated: “Russia cannot escape responsibility for this. They chose to close their eyes to the barbarity. They defied the conscience of the world.”

 

Both America’s and Russia’s interests center more on ending the Syrian Civil War than on any one particular political future for Damascus; but, the sarin attacks have renewed calls for Assad’s removal. Of greater importance, the focus of America and the free world and Russia must be unified on eradicating the Islamic State [Daesh] and the Islamofascists who are destabilizing the entire region.

 

President Trump acted contrary to the popular consensus and what most presidents would have done. He attacked Syria solely for humanitarian reasons. Now he must clearly articulate the mission ahead and America’s interests in this war, since there isn’t any nation with the capacity to fix Syria’s problems. Getting rid of Assad will most assuredly be hard and have serious consequences, but America’s new, strong and determined President Trump has shown his willingness to effectively counter the world’s dictators, and he will not tolerate egregious, inhuman chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA


While Dems are crying about the unproven collusion between President Trump and the Russians to win Election-2016 AND ignoring Dem collusion with the Russians (which is better documented), Russia is quietly changing the balance of power in the Middle East by colluding with Iran for geopolitical regional power.

The Dems are either saps or more than willing to stealthily cooperate with the former Soviet Union whose President is a former uber-spy Vladimir Putin.

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

************

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA [Summary/Intro]

 

By Genevieve Casagrande

Mar 20, 2017

Institute for the Study of War [ISW]

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary objective in Syria is to constrain U.S. freedom of action – not fight ISIS and al Qaeda. Russia’s military deployments at current levels will not enable the Iranian-penetrated Assad regime to secure Syria. Moscow’s deepening footprint in Syria threatens America’s ability to defend its interests across the Middle East and in the Mediterranean Sea. The next U.S. step in Syria must help regain leverage over Russia rather than further encourage Putin’s expansionism.

 

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) produced this report with the Critical Threats Project (CTP). The insights are part of an intensive multi-month exercise to frame, design, and evaluate potential courses of action that the United States could pursue to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) and al Qaeda in Syria. The ISW-CTP team recently released “America’s Way Ahead in Syria,” which details the flaws in the current U.S. approach in Iraq and Syria and proposes the first phase of a strategic reset in the Middle East.

 

+++

Putin’s Real Syria Agenda

By Genevieve Casagrande and Kathleen Weinberger

March 2017

ISW – PDF

 

Russia’s intervention in Syria in September 2015 fundamentally altered the balance of the Syrian Civil War.1 Russia re-established momentum behind Syrian President Bashar al Assad and his Iranian allies at a moment when major victories by ISIS and Syrian rebels threatened to force the regime to contract into Syria’s central corridor.2 The capabilities Russia deployed were not limited to the airframes, artillery, and personnel needed to conduct a counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency mission, however. Russia deployed advanced air defense and ballistic missile systems, naval units, air superiority aircraft, and other capabilities in a display of major Russian force projection in the region. Russian President Vladimir Putin is altering the balance of power in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean through sustained Russian military operations and additional deployments of high-end capabilities.

 

Russian Force Projection

 

Russia ultimately seeks to expand its permanent naval and air bases on the Syrian coast in order to further project force into the Mediterranean and Middle East. Russia’s establishment of an anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) exclusion zone from its bases at Latakia and Tartous allows Russia to create de-facto no fly zones in the Eastern Mediterranean as well as over most of Syria. These A2/AD zones constrain U.S. freedom of movement and ultimately raise the cost of U.S. involvement in Syria.3 Russia deployed the naval version of the S-300 to protect the airspace over Latakia airbase in Syria in November 2015.4 Russia also deployed the S-400 in late November 2015 shortly after the Turkish downing of a Russian jet.5 Russia has since deployed an additional seven S-300 systems in an effort to build in redundancies, advance the integration of its air defenses, and provide more comprehensive coverage.6 The S-300 and S-400 systems are road mobile and interoperable, increasing the difficulty of neutralizing the systems. [See Appendix I]

 

Putin wants to challenge the U.S. and its allies by increasing Russian military and political influence in the Middle East. Russia has rotated a wide range of naval vessels to participate in the conflict in order to demonstrate the capabilities of these units and Russia’s willingness to deploy them in the Mediterranean. Russia has deployed some of its most advanced non-nuclear naval capabilities to the Eastern Mediterranean.7 Russian subsurface and surface vessels successfully engaged ground targets in Syria after launching Kalibr cruise missiles from the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas.8 Russia has shown it can undertake precision strikes with the nuclear-capable Kalibr cruise missile at significant distance.

 

Russia also maintains anti-ship capabilities in the Mediterranean, including the Bastion-P coastal defense system. Russia demonstrated the land attack capabilities of the Bastion in November 2016.9 Russia has also deployed battle cruisers that bring advanced anti-ship and air defense capabilities off the Syrian coast. Russia’s deployment of its much-ridiculed aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov nevertheless showcased its force projection capabilities and intent to exhibit its naval presence in the Mediterranean.10 [See Appendix II]

 

Putin has deployed air defense and anti-ship systems to Syria in order to threaten the United States. Russia does not need these systems to support the counter-terrorism campaign it claims it is waging against anti-Assad opposition groups in Syria. Those groups do not operate aircraft or naval vessels. Russia also deployed the nuclear capable SS-26 ‘Iskander’ ballistic missiles to Syria and used the systems to attack opposition held terrain.11 The Iskander missiles provide no meaningful additional advantage against the opposition. The only conceivable target for these advanced systems is the U.S. and its allies. [See Appendix III]

 

Constrain U.S. Freedom of Action

 

Russia has used its deployment to constrain U.S. freedom of action and limit American policy options in Syria. Russia deployed the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems to deter the U.S. from direct military action against the Assad regime through the unilateral establishment of a no-fly zone. Russia has also forward deployed assets beyond its air and naval bases on the coast in order to further complicate the personnel are primarily concentrated in Latakia, Aleppo, and Tartous Provinces, but are also active in Hama, Homs, Damascus, and Hasakah and include a wide range of units including air assault, tank, medical, naval infantry, and special operations forces. [See Appendix IV]

 

Russia has intentionally removed potential U.S. partners within the armed opposition from the battlefield in Syria. Russian airstrikes from October 2015 to March 2017 have primarily targeted the mainstream Syrian opposition – not ISIS – in order to ensure the opposition’s defeat through its submission, destruction, or transformation. The Russian air campaign has driven what remains of the mainstream opposition closer to Salafi-jihadi groups, which are stronger and better able to defend against intensified pro-regime military operations. Russia is also exacerbating radicalization through its deliberate, illegal targeting of civilians. Russia has consistently targeted hospitals, schools, and other critical civilian infrastructure throughout the sixteen months of its air campaign.

 

Russian Testing Grounds

 

Russia has also used sustained use of transport aircraft in Syria to exercise the Russian military’s overall combat readiness and force projection capabilities. Expeditionary logistics and force projection is difficult for militaries to exercise, in general. Russia is exercising expeditionary logistics by air and sea in Syria.13 Russia is refining its ability to deploy its military personnel and equipment rapidly at a large scale in order to message its ability to threaten the U.S. and its NATO and European allies. Russia announced its intent to prioritize the development of naval equipment for troop transport on March 8 in order to increase the Russian Navy’s ability to provide logistical support in Syria and in other coastal zones.14 Russia also re-supplies and provides combat support for prospect of direct U.S. strikes against the Syrian regime for fear of inadvertently hitting Russian troops. Sources estimated that Russia maintains between 1,500 and 4,000 military personnel in Syria.12 These forces in Syria through frequent deliveries from Russian Il-76 and An-124 transport aircraft. As of October 2016, these transport aircraft were making multiple trips to Syria each month and it is likely that these aircraft continue to make regular trips to Syria. [See Appendix V]

 

Limitations of Russian Capabilities

 

Putin faces a number of economic and military constraints that limit the resources Russia can bring to bear in Syria. Russia’s economic crisis has forced Russia to balance limited resources across key theaters like Ukraine, the Baltics, the Middle East, and domestically in Russia. Putin has opted to pursue multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of effort using a diverse set of naval, air, missile, and ground capabilities in Syria. The overlap allows Russia to extract significant benefits with minimal cost. The Russian military has demonstrated its many shortcomings during its deployment to Syria, including frequent friendly fire incidents, losses of Russian aircraft, a poor performance by Russia’s aging aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov, and reports of mechanical failure of Russian equipment.15

 

The Russian deployment, at current levels, will be insufficient to grant Assad victory over the opposition, al Qaeda, or ISIS. Russia, Iran, and the regime have been unable to sustain significant simultaneous operations against ISIS and the Syrian opposition, despite Russia’s considerable airframe deployments. Russian airframes were unable to prevent ISIS’s recapture of Palmyra in December 2016 alongside a final pro-regime push to defeat the opposition in Aleppo, for example.16 Russia has instead used ‘cessation of hostilities’ agreements to drawdown its airstrikes against the opposition and surge its air campaign against ISIS for limited periods of time.17 Salafi-Jihadi groups have meanwhile begun to consolidate the opposition under more effective command-and-control structures, increasing rebels’ capabilities and resiliency.18 This dynamic will not only lead to a protracted and bloody civil war for the foreseeable future, but it ultimately raises the requirements for the U.S. to deal with the conflict.

 

Implications

 

Russia is both an unacceptable and ineffective partner against jihadists in Syria. The Russian deployment is inconsistent with Putin’s narrative that Russia intervened in Syria in order to combat terrorists. Many of its capabilities have no utility in the anti-ISIS fight. Putin instead seeks to use Russia’s deployment to subordinate U.S. military action and policies to Russian objectives in Syria. Russia’s aggressive deployment to Syria intends to deter the U.S. from intervening for fear of incurring significant costs. Russia has largely pursued its objectives in Syria with impunity. It has deprived the U.S. of freedom of maneuver, disrupted U.S. partnerships with key allies in the region, and facilitated Russia’s emergence as a geopolitical force in the region. Any potential partnership with Russia in Syria will further strengthen jihadists and force the U.S. to capitulate to a Russian vision for the broader Middle East that endangers America’s security interests.

 

Genevieve Casagrande is a Syria Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Kathleen Weinberger is a Russia and Ukraine Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Institute for the Study of War Twitter: @TheStudyofWar Critical Threats Twitter: @criticalthreats

 

[Blog Editor: From this point forward the rest of the report are the Appendices (i.e. charts) and Notes. The last section is actually longer than the report itself. To view the Appendices and Notes go to the PDF.]

 

____________________

©2007 – 2017 THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR

 

Who is ISW

 

We are on the front lines of military thinking.

 

Our Mission

The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.

 

Our History

Dr. Kimberly Kagan founded ISW in May 2007, as U.S. forces undertook a daring new counterinsurgency strategy to reverse the grim security situation on the ground in Iraq. Frustrated with the prevailing lack of accurate information documenting developments on the ground in Iraq and the detrimental effect of biased reporting on policymakers, Dr. Kagan established ISW to provide real-time, independent, and open-source analysis of ongoing military operations and READ THE REST

 

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance


bho-purged-military-for-disagreeing

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

 

You should be aware that the Obama Administration has taken a hard line toward military servicemen from private to general for minor infractions, made-up infractions or policy direction opposite to the worst President in U.S. history.

 

Sgt. Gary Stein

 

The Marine sergeant facing discharge because of critical comments about President Obama says the board that recommended his dismissal ignored the law and instead relied on “personal opinion.”

 

 

Stein, 26, a nine-year veteran including deployment to Iraq, had been recommended for dismissal and an other-than-honorable discharge by his commander for comments posted on four Facebook pages.

 

In his postings, Stein called Obama a coward and an enemy, vowed not to salute him and called for his defeat in this year’s election. One of the websites was an Armed Forces Tea Party page on Facebook that was created by Stein. READ ENTIRETY (Marine who criticized Obama says hearing board ignored law; Posted by NewsEditor; USIF.net; 4/11/12)

 

Lt. Michael Behenna

 

On March 20th, 2009, Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna was sentenced to 25 years in prison for killing Ali Mansur, a known Al Qaeda operative while serving in Iraq. Mansur was known to be a member of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the lieutenant’s area of operation and Army intelligence believed he organized an attack on Lt. Behenna’s platoon in April 2008 which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more. Army intelligence ordered the release of Mansur and Lt. Behenna was ordered to return the terrorist to his home.

 

During the return of Mansur, Lt. Behenna again questioned the Al Qaeda member for information about other members of the terrorist cell, and financial supporters. During this interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense. The government subsequently prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder.

 

Not only is this a miscarriage of justice on the behalf of Lt. Behenna, who was acting to prevent further loss of life in his platoon, it is demoralizing to the U.S. troops who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation. READ ENTIRETY (MILITARY PROSECUTORS WITHHOLD EVIDENCE; ARMY RANGER GOES TO PRISON FOR 25 YEARS FOR SHOOTING AL QAEDA OPERATIVE; DefendMichael.com)

 

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal

 

McKiernan was succeeded by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was in turn assigned to undertake his own 60-day assessment. But when word spread that McChrystal intended to propose a substantial new increase in forces, which Pentagon gossip initially put as high as 80,000 additional troops, waves of dismay spread through the White House. In late September 2009, a copy of McChrystal’s assessment was leaked to the Washington Post. Its bottom line was clear: If the United States did not pour significant additional resources into Afghanistan, and fast, the likely result would be “mission failure.”

 

… Furious at the leak—which they blamed on the Pentagon—and reluctant to accept McChrystal’s grim conclusions, senior White House aides engaged in strategic counter-leaks. In their version, McChrystal and the Pentagon were trying to box in the president by pushing to deploy tens of thousands more troops and refusing to consider other approaches.

 

 

… And less than a year later, McChrystal was forced to resign after a Rolling Stone profile quoted his top military aides mocking several senior civilian officials, including Eikenberry and Vice President Joe Biden. READ ENTIRETY (Obama vs. the Generals; By ROSA BROOKS; POLITICO; 11/2013)

 

General David Petraeus

 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is now thinking of retroactively taking away one or two of Petraeus’s four stars. The potential demotion in rank, opposed by the Army, is intended as further punishment for the misdemeanor to which he pleaded guilty last year. Petraeus accepted two years of probation and paid a $100,000 fine for allowing his mistress, Paula Broadwell, to read classified information for research on the biography she was writing about Petraeus.

Carter apparently wants to ensure that Petraeus is treated in the same fashion as other miscreant generals and admirals who have lost rank. Yet there is no evidence that Broadwell (who enjoyed a military security clearance of her own) ever shared the classified information with anyone or disclosed it in the biography.

That does not excuse the bad judgment of Petraeus. But it does invite an obvious comparison with former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She not only sent classified information over her unsecured e-mail to several individuals but remains untruthful about that fact. READ ENTIRETY (The Obama Administration Needs to Abandon Its Petraeus Obsession; By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON; National Review; 1/28/16 12:00)

 

General James Mattis, USMC

 

… Mattis wanted to strike Iran in retaliation for killing U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011; however, President Obama refused to grant permission.

 

Iranian-supplied rockets killed as many as 15 U.S. troops per month in Iraq in the summer of 2011, and Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis had a plan to retaliate. I personally recall from my years of duty in Casualty Affairs at Dover Air Force Base during this same time period, that, along with the casualties from IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices with “shaped charges” provided by Iran that could penetrate our armored vehicles) the rockets killed many U.S. troops.  We were receiving the bodies of U.S. service members virtually every day, along with thousands of family members who came to Dover for the ceremonies honoring their loved ones.

 

Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a single such attack in early June of 2011, with another three killed days later. Mattis, then the commander of U.S. Central Command, had enough and decided the U.S. must retaliate before the Iranian rockets and IEDs caused further casualties. Coordinating with then Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Mattis proposed an attack inside Iran.

 

 

The White House received the strike proposal and subsequently denied it. President Barack Obama believed such a strike would infuriate the Iranians, possibly escalating the need for U.S. troops in Iraq, something he was trying so desperately to end. Some Administration insiders feared the plan would start a war with Iran, a country with which President Obama wanted to improve relations.

 

Of course, now we know President Obama had another reason to deny the strike request, though it was not publicly known.  At the time, the Obama Administration was secretly negotiating with Iran on its growing nuclear weapons program. READ ENTIRETY (What You Need to Know About General Mattis; By Wesley Smith; ACLJ; 1/12/17)

 

I haven’t found reliable confirmation, but some conspiracy site claim:

 

Was Fired After He Refused To Take Up Arms Against U.S. Citizens by Dave Gibson 02/17/2015. READ ENTIRETY (Obama purging top brass from the military; Posted by JS; Independence Day; 10/26/15)

 

Here is an article from FrontPageMag that lists several Generals and Admirals that paints a suspicious picture of an Obama purge of the military of Officers that may have found reasons to disagree with Obama’s military vision.

 

President Obama hasn’t just been hollowing out the military since taking office, he’s been gutting it, purging it of ideologically hostile personnel, and fundamentally transforming it into something other than a war-fighting force, military experts say.

 

Although few with military ties are willing to say it openly, it seems the administration is leading an orchestrated effort to seriously undermine the readiness of the military. Some reports indicate that Obama has purged 197 senior military officers since moving into the White House and that many of the retired officers have been harassed at their new civilian jobs for criticizing the president’s policies. The effects of these purges will be felt long after Obama leaves office. READ ENTIRETY (PURGING AND TRANSFORMING OUR MILITARY; By Matthew Vadum; FrontPageMag; 11/7/13)

 

Here is a list of the high-level Officers mentioned in the FrontPageMag article:

 

 

  • David McKiernan

 

  • Stanley McChrystal

 

  • David Petraeus

 

  • John Allen

 

  • Carter Ham

 

  • Admiral David Gaurette

 

  • Marine Gen. James Cartwright

 

  • Vice Admiral Tim Giardina

 

  • Major Gen. Michael Carey

 

The American Left will tell you these generals served their time and retired or were caught in unethical or illegal activities and were forced to resign or retire. The unethical/illegal dismissals appear suspicious to me because these guys became generals or admirals because of military smarts. This insinuates sophomoric actions that tarnishes credibility is way out of the ordinary, especially if their stars were earned in combat situations that led to command reliability. One general says this about the apparent Obama military purge:

 

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WND that President Obama has forced out so many military leaders who have doubts about his policies that the nation’s armed forces no longer feel prepared to fight or to try to win armed conflicts. (Ibid.)

 

By this point if I were you, I’d be wondering why I am thinking about the Obama purge story which has been around for most of Obama’s two terms of Office.

 

I received an email from the mother of a Lieutenant convicted of murder while on active duty in Afghanistan. The email is quite compelling and knowing how Obama has been ripping the military apart, my first thought was to jump on the sympathetic train.

lt-lorance-setenced-20-yrs-prison

Before I jumped on board, I decided to check some other sources to see the military’s case against the Lieutenant. AND WHOAH! There are two conflicting stories that makes the difference between truth and lies because those who testified against the Lieutenant were there and followed orders. And another issue for me is this. Perhaps the story told by the Lieutenant’s soldiers is accurate about the Lieutenant’s character and actions, BUT the military prosecutors obviously withheld exculpatory evidence that make the Lieutenant less of a murderer and more of a taking the enemy combatants out.

 

So, I am going to cross post the mother’s email and then at least an excerpt of the military’s case. And you can see what I mean.

 

JRH 1/20/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

My Son Deserves his Freedom

By Mr. Anna Lorance

Sent 1/17/2017 7:44 AM

anna-lorance-mom-lt-clint-lorance

I know we have never met. But if you have children of your own, you’ll understand why I’m writing you today.

You see, the young handsome man in this photo is my son, Lt. Clint Lorance of the U.S. Army.

Like any mother, I was so scared that Clint would be hurt – or even killed – after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

Then on July 2, 2012, it almost happened.

Clint was sent to a “hot zone” on a dangerous mission to replace a lieutenant who had been injured when the Taliban attacked his platoon just days earlier.

He was warned to look for multiple riders on red motorcycles – known as “spotters” who alert the Taliban when they see U.S. troops. And every soldier was on edge. They all knew about the earlier ambush – and that just days before a U.S. soldier had been shot in the neck in this very village.

Suddenly a U.S. helicopter radioed in to Clint that a group of motorcycle riders was sitting outside of the village near a road that was used only by the Taliban.

As Clint confirmed a clear description of the enemy, a motorcycle charged toward the platoon so one of the soldiers asked permission to fire a warning shot. Clint said, “yes.”

But the riders did not stop. Instead, they continued riding and broke through the troop’s formation, jumped off the motorcycle, and headed right toward our troops. With only a split-second to make a decision, Clint ordered his marksman to fire. Two of the riders were killed. The other was captured in the village.

Meanwhile, two other Taliban members were killed by Clint’s platoon and a second man captured trying to leave the village.

When Clint and his men arrived back at base, Clint ordered both of the prisoners to be tested for explosives residue. BOTH tested positive for residue on their hands, confirming Clint’s suspicions that the motorcycle riders posed a threat.

Yet instead of imprisoning and interrogating these men, military intelligence at Brigade Headquarters released the men back into the wild.

Then they fired Clint as platoon leader.

And one year later, Clint was sitting in a military courtroom on trial for murder.

Five other members of Clint’s platoon were also charged, including the marksman who had actually shot and killed the terrorists.

But all five were promised immunity if they would agree to testify against Clint.

Every one of the statements from these five soldiers changed from their initial statements. That’s right, not one of their stories was the same as the account they gave on the day of the attack.

But Clint’s account did not change.

And when asked for his only statement during the trial, he looked into the eyes of the jury and said, “I totally take all responsibility for my actions. I gave the order because I was the leader on the ground and perceived a hostile intent.”

My friend, I’m proud that my son gave that order.

Because only weeks after the ambush on Clint’s platoon, a motorcycle with two riders rode into a village where U.S. soldiers were patrolling and detonated explosives strapped to their cycle. That leader did not react as my son did – and American soldiers died.

But none of this mattered to the military court. Even though Clint never fired his weapon, he was found “guilty” and sentenced to 20 years in Fort Leavenworth Prison.

As soon as the verdict was read, Clint turned to us. He told his brother, “Be strong and promise me that you will take care of my Momma and Dad.”

Then he took me by the shoulders and said, “Momma I can’t leave here without knowing that you are okay.”

It took every bit of strength I had to not cry. I did not want Clint to see me in tears as they took him from the courtroom. Instead I told him, “We will get through this. God loves to walk the dark hills with us.”

Now, over three years later, I’m seeing just how much God is walking with us through this terrible time thanks to Major Bill Donahue of the United American Patriots. UAP helps provide legal defenses for soldiers like Clint who have been unjustly accused of crimes for making split-second decisions in the heat of combat.

Maj. Donahue is a Marine who survived three tours of duty in Vietnam – so he knows what it’s like to make decisions behind enemy lines. And he knows you can’t second-guess our young soldiers who have been trained to defend themselves in combat.

UAP is fighting to help Clint mount an appeal, a motion for mistrial AND secure a presidential pardon. But it’s a costly process – and money our son doesn’t have.

Clint was stripped of all pay when he was indicted. He was forced to sell his house. And he lost all 10 years of his Army pension.

All we can do now is rely on UAP and the big hearts of American patriots like you who support them and their mission.

UAP is a non-profit organization. They don’t receive a dime of federal funding. And Maj. Donahue doesn’t even take a salary for his work. He just wants to help soldiers.

If you can help with a tax-deductible gift of any amount, won’t you please send it to UAP today to help them fight for my son?

While politically correct government officials are going to extreme measures to protect the “civil rights” of terrorists who want to destroy our country, soldiers like my son are sitting in prison for protecting our nation from these terrorists!

On behalf of every mother of a U.S. soldier, thank you for taking the time to read my letter and for whatever support you can send today.

Sincerely,
Mrs. Anna Lorance

P.S. During a break in the trial, I walked outside to catch some air. The last soldier who had testified against Clint was standing on the sidewalk with tears running down his face. When he looked up at me he quickly dropped his head in shame. Clearly, he knows he helped the Obama Administration send an innocent soldier to prison. Thank you for helping UAP fight to bring him home!

 

+++

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

By Michelle Tan

January 12, 2015

Army Times

 

Shortly after the soldiers from 4th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment set out on patrol from Strong Point Payenzai, Afghanistan, a motorcycle carrying three Afghan men came into view.

 

Pfc. James Skelton reported the sighting to 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, his new platoon leader.

 

“He told me to engage,” Skelton said, according to the transcript from Lorance’s court-martial.

 

Skelton fired two shots. He missed. The motorcycle came to a stop, the men climbed off and began walking towards the Afghan National Army soldiers who were at the front of the U.S.-Afghan patrol.

 

“The ANA started telling them to go back, waving to them to return towards the motorcycle, to stay away,” Skelton testified. “They turned around and went back towards the motorcycle.”

 

Within seconds, two of them were dead. The third man ran away.

 

A gun truck that was accompanying the soldiers on foot had opened fire with its M240B machine gun.

 

“He was told to engage by Lieutenant Lorance when they had a visual,” Skelton testified.

 

“Did he ask the vehicle what the men were doing?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“No,” Skelton said.

 

“He just told them to engage?” the prosecutor asked.

 

“Yes,” Skelton said.

 

One year after that fateful July 2, 2012, patrol, in a case that has been controversial from the start, Lorance was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

 

Lorance, now 30, is serving a 19-year prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, but his case is far from over. Across the nation, thousands are rallying in hopes the baby-faced soldier can regain his freedom. They see him as a patriot, unfairly punished for actions taken to protect his fellow soldiers.

 

His own soldiers, however, paint a much different picture: They claim their platoon leader was ignorant, overzealous and out of control. That he hated the Afghan people and that he had spent recent days tormenting the locals and issuing death threats.

 

 

But as the fight for the young officer’s freedom has gained traction online and on social media, Lorance’s own soldiers are pushing back, they say, to make sure their side of the story is told.

 

Two sides of Clint Lorance

 

“All these petitioners need to be shown what kind of man [Lorance] really is,” said a soldier who served as a team leader in Lorance’s platoon, who asked to speak on background because he is still on active duty. “This isn’t a soldier that went to war and gone done wrong. This is a soldier that had a taste for blood and wanted to have that fulfilled. And he did, but in the wrong way.”

 

Todd Fitzgerald, a former specialist and infantryman in Lorance’s platoon, said he felt betrayed by the lieutenant.

 

“I don’t believe that he really understood what he was getting into,” he said.

 

Fitzgerald testified during Lorance’s court-martial.

 

“Us testifying against him, it wasn’t a matter of not liking him, it wasn’t a matter of any type of grudge or coercion,” he said. “It was simply we knew that his actions, based on our experience, having operated in that area for months, were going to breed further insurgency. If you kill local citizens, they’re no longer willing to help you.”

 

Testimony from these solders is in stark contrast to how Lorance’s mother, Anna, describes her son.

 

 

Fight for a new trial

 

Maher said he is disappointed in Clarke’s decision regarding clemency. He also said his client has grounds for a new trial.

 

“The defense has now identified information linking five of seven Afghan military-aged males on the field that day with terror,” Maher said. “Because the government has always had that information and did not disclose it to the command or the trial defense counsel, examining 1st Lt. Lorance’s decision-making takes a back seat. We never get to that question.”

 

Basically, the government is obligated to disclose evidence that could negate guilt, reduce the degree of guilt or reduce the punishment for the accused, Maher said, citing the Rule for Courts-Martial.

 

“The first day at the Army JAG school, we’re taught you turn over everything,” said Maher, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

 

The government made a “serious legal error” by not turning over exonerating and/or mitigating evidence contained in government computer databases, Maher said.

 

“Before the government can take away any soldier’s liberty, freedom, career, income, retirement, educational benefits, and full ability to get a job, the government must follow the rules,” he said. “Here, it did not.”

 

If that information had been turned over, the defense might have taken a different approach, or the case may not even have made it to trial, said Maher, who points out Lorance never fired his weapon that day.

 

“Clint did not initiate this, nor did he engage anybody directly,” he said.

 

Though he didn’t fire the weapon, he was convicted of making the call. He was also convicted of threatening a local Afghan; firing an M14 rifle into a village and trying to have one of his soldiers lie about receiving incoming fire; and obstructing justice by making a false radio report after the two men on the motorcycle were killed.

 

 

“Over about a three-day period, Lieutenant Lorance … committed crimes of violence and crimes of dishonesty,” said Capt. Kirk Otto, who prosecuted the case for the government, according to a transcript of the court-martial.

 

First, on June 30, 2012, Lorance threatened to kill an Afghan man and his family, Otto said in his opening statement.

 

The man, a farmer, and his child, who was about 4 years old, were at the gate to talk to the Americans about the concertina wire that was blocking access to his farm field, Otto said.

 

“He said, ‘You move the c-wire, I’ll have somebody kill you,'” Spc. James Twist, who was at the scene, testified during the court-martial.

 

Lorance then tried to have the Afghan turn in IEDs to the Americans, Twist testified.

 

“He was like, ‘You bring us IEDs or we’ll have the ANA kill your family,'” Twist said. “And Lieutenant Lorance was like, ‘Well, if we ever come onto your land and we step on an IED or we find an IED, I’ll have the ANA come and kill your family.’ And he pointed to the kid and said, ‘Do you want to see your child grow up?'”

 

The next day, Lorance directed one of the platoon’s squad designated marksmen to fire his M14 rifle from one of the Strong Point’s guard towers into the neighboring village of Sarenzai, Otto said.

 

“He directs harassing fire — illegal harassing fire — at villagers,” Otto said.

 

Lorance directed his soldier to shoot near groups of people, as well as at walls and vehicles, he said. The soldier, Spc. Matthew Rush, refused to shoot when Lorance directed him to fire near a group of children, Otto said.

 

“These villagers were not doing anything,” Otto said. “There was no demonstrated hostile intent. No one heard incoming shots.”

 

The soldier who served as a team leader in the platoon, who spoke to Army Times on background, said he has pictures of Lorance on the rooftop.

 

“He was out of control,” the soldier said. “We told him, ‘Sir, I don’t think it’s a good idea.’ He was like, ‘Oh, it’s a great idea. We’re going to scare these guys so they actually attend our shura, and we won’t lose anymore guys.”

 

Lorance later tried to have Sgt. Daniel Williams, who was in the tactical operations center, falsely report that the Strong Point received incoming potshots, Otto said.

 

“He told me to report up that they had taken potshots from the village,” Williams testified. “I told him that I wouldn’t … because it’s a false report. At least I thought so, sir.”

 

Williams also testified that Lorance said “he didn’t really care about upsetting them too much because he f**king hated them.”

 

‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?’

 

The next day, as the soldiers prepared to head out on a patrol, a small group of three or four Afghan men met them at the gate.

 

The men were upset. They wanted to know why the Americans shot into their village the day before.

 

Lorance told them that if they had a problem, they could attend the shura, or meeting, he planned to have later in the week, according to testimony. The Afghans refused to budge.

 

“He told them to get out of there,” Skelton said in his testimony. “He started very aggressively yelling at them, and he started counting, and he pulled back the charging handle on his weapon and chambered a round.”

 

As the soldiers’ interpreter “panicked,” one of the other soldiers testified, the Afghans turned away and left.

 

The Americans and a squad of Afghan National Army soldiers began walking out on their patrol.

 

Just moments into the patrol, Skelton opened fire on the motorcycle and then Pvt. David Shilo, operating the M240B machine gunon the truck, killed the two Afghans.

 

Fitzgerald, who left the Army in August, said he was standing near Lorance when the men on the motorcycle were hit.

 

“I remember him asking, ‘Why isn’t anybody firing yet?'” Fitzgerald said, adding that Lorance then took the radio and ordered the soldiers in the gun truck to open fire.

 

The men on the motorcycle stopped when Skelton first opened fire, Fitzgerald said.

 

“At that point, they were definitely not any type of threat,” he said. “They weren’t coming at us.”

 

The patrol then pushed on into the village, where the bodies were quickly surrounded by crying and upset villagers.

 

First, Lorance prevented Skelton, who’s trained to conduct battle damage assessments, including READ ENTIRETY

 

+++

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

December 8, 2016

Military Votes Count

 

 

The Case Against Clint Lorance –

 

His own men testified against him. They said the guys on the motorcycles were not a threat. At first, they refused to fire, but Clint ordered them to open fire. They also claimed that Lt. Lorance threatened a local farmer that he and his son would be killed if the Taliban planted an I.E.D. (improvised explosive device) on their farm land.

 

If your own troops testify against you, that has to be given heavy weight; however, that four of the six troops were granted immunity places shade on their testimony.

 

The Case In Favor of Clint Lorance –

 

Clint Lorance was sent into a heavy Taliban-invested area to replace another leuitent that had been wounded. At the trial the government may not have disclosed that the men who were killed were Taliban IED terrorists. Following the trial, this evidence came out (and here). Clint also had information that his troops did not from overhead surveillance which indicated Taliban were closing in on his position.

 

 

The Takeaway –

 

If the government withheld exculpatory evidence, then the military prosecutors should be charged. I don’t know that they did that, but if they did.

 

There are two versions of this story. In one version Clint is a blood thirsty 1st Lt. who is out of control, who is killing the very people our troops were sent there to protect. In the other version, the people he killed were the enemy, and the government knew they were the enemy. In this second version, 1st Lt. Clint Lorance had good reason to believe they were the enemy.

 

There is READ ENTIRETY

 

Supporters of Lt. Clint Lorance that send email alerts:

 

Lt. Col. Allen West

 

TruthRevolt.org

 

United American Patriots (UAP)

 

UAP Petition (to Obama – hopefully changing to President Trump)

 

UAP Donation for Lt. Clint Lorance

_______________

Obama Military Conspiracy up to Lt. Clint Lorance

John R. Houk

© January 20, 2017

_____________

My Son Deserves his Freedom

SUPPORT CLINT LORANCE

 

United American Patriots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Mailing Address: 121-F Shields Park Drive, Kernersville, NC 27284

© Copyright 2016, UnitedPatriots.org

___________

Hero or murderer? Soldiers divided in 1LT Lorance case

 

© 2017 Sightline Media Group Site

 

About Army Times

_________________

The Case Of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance

 

Copyright © 2017 Military Votes Count.

 

About Military Votes Count

 

Disputing Muslim Persecution of Christians


 

London 1940

John R. Houk

© January 19, 2017

 

On January 8th, I posted a Shamim Mahmood submission. Shamim’s submission was a slim rundown on his advocacy as a journalist and Rights activist for his fellow Christians in Pakistan. The rundown is to demonstrate Shamim is a worthy cause to support. Pakistanis don’t make a lot of cash and Pakistani-Christians by the majority earn even less.

 

By the way, Shamim is still worthy of Western aid that is best sent via Western Union.

dresden-1945

First contact Shamim in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending money with this LINK to the destination of Islamabad (Contact Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email is shamimpakistan@gmail.com, Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone – +92-300-642-4560

 

A well-meaning Muslim gal left a comment to that Shamim submission politely claiming the persecution of Christians and other non-Sunni Muslims was a myth used to get money of donors under false pretenses.

 

Below is that discussion back and forth between me and Aisha. Then follows a query by me to Shamim about Aisha’s perception. Which is followed by Shamim’s email response.

 

Aisha Khan

1/8/17

 

this is a blatant lie just to raise money, in fact there are Christians in my area and they are very safe and happy with their families. We have good relations with each other, we share our happy and sad moments with each other, we eat together and celebrate together.
This is a failed try to snatch money from people.

John Houk

1/15/17 (1/9/17 @ 9:10 AM & 9:58 AM on SlantRight 2.0)

 

+Aisha Khan Aisha I am guessing you are a Muslim. If my guess is correct, I can make a couple of assumptions from your comment:

1) You are a deluded Muslim with your head in the sand.

2) You are a Muslim Propagandist spreading deceit about the actual brutality of Sunni Muslims against all Pakistani minorities not just Christians (Ironically Pakistani Sunnis also are brutal toward Pakistani Shias & Ahmadiyyas – both of which consider themselves Muslims).

 

Aisha, this blog is full of reports about Muslim brutality against Christians not only in Pakistan but also in other Muslim dominated nations. To allude anything else is the actual lie.

Indeed Aisha, here is a link of the most recent use of the Pakistan Blasphemy Law that is obviously a FALSE allegation against a Christian man:

 

http://www.assistnews.net/index.php/component/k2/item/2524-pakistan-illiterate-christian-man-from-lahore-accused-of-blasphemy.

Using the Blasphemy Law as a vendetta is legalized terrorism, because the accused is imprisoned under horrendous conditions awaiting a death sentence or is suspiciously and mysteriously murdered awaiting the execution of a death sentence.

Aisha Khan

1/16/17

 

+John Houk Absolutely I’m a Muslimah and I’m telling you the truth, there are many Christian families in my area and they are quite safe and happy with their families. They are doing Jobs in various Govt. institutions and also their private jobs. What you are telling me is a different situation and can happen in any country. For example we all know about the wave of terrorism in Pakistan. A large number of Muslims were killed, injured in various bomb blasts and other terrorist attacks. But we can’t blame other sects for this act.

 
We also know that America a Christian country is killing thousands of innocent people including women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries. In the name of peace they are waging war on Muslims but we are not blaming Christians for this act of terror.

 
I also know there are black sheep in every community, there may be some misguided Muslims who are involved in such wrong acts but we can’t blame the whole Sunni Muslims for personal act of any individual or a group of people.

 
Also, we have to respect each other’s faith. No one has the right to insult or humiliate other people’s faith. We must avoid such provoking acts which leads to an anarchy and crises like situation.

 
I think this is much worse to use a few events and get emotional sympathies of people to snatch some money.

 
I think this more worse than the act committed by some ignorant individuals.

 
I condemn both of them.

++++

Dear Shamim

 

I have been having a G+ discussion with one Aisha Khan about the last submission you sent to me entitled “Keep Shamim Reporting”. The conversation has been quite polite, but she (I assume “she” in case I am mistaken)  claims your position of Sunni-Muslims persecuting religious minorities in Pakistan is a lie. And quote:

 

this is a blatant lie just to raise money, in fact there are Christians in my area and they very safe and happy with their families.”

 

I read reports from other sources other than just yours; hence, I conclude there is a huge persecution problem in Pakistan. Nonetheless, she seems quite sincere in her belief. Below is the entire discussion between me and her to date on the G+ Community Anti-Islam:

 

 

My knee-jerk reaction is that Aisha is calling you and me a liar. An American colloquialism describes my emotion to being called a liar; viz., “That chaps my hide.” So, I am going to cool off about a day and blog this interaction with some further thoughts from myself. If you have any thoughts between now and the time I begin to construct an edited post, you are more than welcome to provide your perspective

 

+++

Shamim Mahmood

RE: Aisha Khan – Pakistani Muslim

1/16/2017 8:14 PM

 

Dear Brother John

 

I think the World is witness to it that how much Christians and other religious minorities are safe [tongue-in-cheek sarcasm] in Pakistan. The level of persecution is clearly reported and it’s not only me, others have reported as well.

 

Seven members of [one] family in Gojra and a Christian couple in Kot Radha Kishan were burnt alive on false blasphemy accusations.

 

Joseph Colony Lahore where more than 70 houses, including two Churches, were set ablaze.

 

Even today, Christians are treated as second-class citizens and in the [Pakistan] Constitution discrimination is clearly seen.

 

John, she is right that in many areas Christians and Muslims are living together and share their happiness and sorrows, but when it comes to a matter of religion these – Muslims – do not hesitate for a second to kill or persecute minorities.  And especially this kind of (Aisha) people become more aggressive and hit first.

 

Yes, there are broad minded and liberal Muslims but they are very few.

 

I’ve visited her G+ that clearly gives a message of her openness. Secondly brother, you know how much money I have raised, but issues Christians are facing [result in] day by day persecution.

 

Thanks now I’m going to take tea.

 

God bless you,

 

Shamim

+++

A Few Thoughts to Aisha’s 1/16/17

January 19, 2017

John R. Houk

 

Aisha wrote:

 

We also know that America a Christian country is killing thousands of innocent people including women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries. In the name of peace they are waging war on Muslims but we are not blaming Christians for this act of terror.

 

Aisha consider the facts behind these quotes:

 

Thirty civilians have been killed in northern Afghanistan during an Afghan special forces mission supported by Nato, an Afghan spokesman says.

 

Provincial officials say many of the deaths were caused by Nato air strikes.

 

The air support was called in after troops were surrounded by Taliban militants, who took shelter in civilian homes, the spokesman said.

 

 

“US forces conducted strikes in Kunduz to defend friendly forces. All civilian casualty claims will be investigated,” the Nato-led Resolute Support mission said.

 

 

A further 25 civilians were wounded in the operation in Kunduz, Mr Danish said, and 26 Taliban fighters were killed, including two commanders. The Taliban say only three of their fighters were killed.

 

US soldiers killed

 

The US military said its soldiers died after coming under fire during a mission to clear a Taliban position.

 

Two other US soldiers were wounded, it said. General John Nicholson said the soldiers’ loss was “heartbreaking”.

 

Taliban fighters came close to overrunning Kunduz city last month and the security situation in the area remains febrile. The insurgents control large areas of the province around the city.

 

US combat operations against the Taliban officially ended in 2014 but special forces have continued to provide support to Afghan troops.

 

Afghan forces have suffered thousands of casualties, with more than 5,500 killed in the first eight months of 2016. READ ENTIRETY (Afghanistan Nato: ’30 civilians killed’ during Taliban fighting; By Reuters; BBC; 11/3/16)

 

And more …

 

The war in Afghanistan continues destroying lives, due to the direct consequences of violence and the war-induced breakdown of public health, security, and infrastructure. Civilians have been killed by crossfire, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), assassinations, bombings, and night raids into houses of suspected insurgents. Even in the absence of fighting, unexploded ordnance from previous wars and United States cluster bombs continue to kill.

 

 

About 104,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan war since 2001. More than 31,000 of those killed have been civilians. An additional 41,000 civilians have been injured since 2001. READ ENTIRETY (AFGHAN CIVILIANS; WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS)

 

And more …

 

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — A joint military operation in northern Afghanistan in early November killed 33 Afghan civilians and wounded 27, the U.S. military said Thursday in releasing details of its investigation into the incident.

 

The attack in Boz village in restive Kunduz province flattened dozens of houses, residents and Taliban insurgents said. The joint operation was conducted to capture Taliban leaders who were plotting to seize the provincial capital of Kunduz, Afghan and U.S. military officials said.

 

“To defend themselves and Afghan forces, U.S. forces returned fire in self-defense at Taliban who were using civilian houses as firing positions,” U.S. military officials said.

 

 

Afghan special forces had planned the raid against the Taliban hideout in Kunduz with the help of a small group of American military advisers. But the insurgents swiftly engaged them, opening fire from multiple civilian buildings, the U.S. military said in its investigation. [Blog Editor: Emphasis Mine]

 

“U.S. and Afghan forces were forced to request aerial fire support from U.S. platforms in self-defense. Aerial fires were also used to suppress Taliban who were firing on U.S. medical evacuation assets as the dead and wounded were evacuated,” it said. READ ENTIRETY (US Confirms Airstrike Killed 33 Afghan Civilians in Kunduz; By Ayaz Gul; VOA; Last Updated 1/12/17 7:29 PM)

 

In Iraq …

 

Another person said: “Before blaming Muslims for Isis, remember that Isis terrorist attacks is targeting more Muslims than any other groups.”

 

Many people were sharing an image bearing the slogan: “Isis is bombing Muslims in Muslim countries in the holy month of Ramadan. And you still say Isis represents Islam?”

 

 

Like in other recent attacks, Isis’ initial propaganda claim said it targeted a “gathering of the Popular Mobilisation” Committees – predominantly Shia armed groups fighting its militants alongside Iraqi security forces.

 

But authorities say there were many women and children among the civilian victims, and a later statement from the organisation made it clear religion was the target, saying: “The raids of the mujahedeen [holy warriors] against the Rafidha [Shia] apostates will not stop.”

 

 

Shias were also the main victims of Isis’ deadliest ever attack in Iraq, when militants massacred 670 prisoners in a raid in Badush in June 2014.

 

A handful of survivors recounted jihadists separating Shias and other religious minorities, driving them into the desert and lining them up on the edge of a ravine before opening fire with machine guns.

 

There are no definitive figures on the number of Muslims or other religious denominations killed by Isis but the huge number of Iraqi victims, where 99 per cent of the population is Muslim, suggests that the religion makes up by far the largest proportion of the dead. READ ENTIRETY (Baghdad bombing: Iraqis remind world that most of Isis’ victims are Muslims after more than 160 killed; By Lizzie Dearden; Independent; 7/5/16)

 

American involvement in Iraq …

 

 

The rate of Iraqi civilian deaths caused by US-led coalition forces has declined steadily from 2009, while the rate caused by Iraqi state forces has increased, with deaths resulting directly from actions involving US-led coalition forces falling to their smallest number ever, at a total of 19 reported by year end (down from 32 in 2010), and deaths involving Iraqi forces rising from 98 in 2010 to 147 in 2011.

 

 

Total deaths with combatants, combining IBC and official records:

 

Combining IBC civilian data with official Iraqi and US combatant death figures and data from the Iraq War Logs released by WikiLeaks, we estimate the documented death toll across all categories since March 2003 to be 162,000, of whom 79% were civilians.

 

Most deadly period of violence:

 

Iraq’s violence peaked in late 2006 but was sustained at high levels until the second half of 2008 – nearly 90% of the deaths occurred by 2009.

 

Weapons claiming the most victims:

graph-weapons-claiming-the-most-victims

 

Civilians killed by Gunfire Explosives Air attacks 2003 – 2011 by quarter Download data

 

64,575 of the civilian dead were reported killed by small arms gunfire; 39,273 by explosive weapons (such as IEDs, suicide attacks, and aerial bombardment); and 5,820by airstrikes (including cannon-fire, bombs and missiles).

 

Children killed:

 

Of the 45,779 victims for whom IBC was able to obtain age data, 3,911 (8.54%) were children under age 18.

 

Most-targeted group:

 

Police forces have been a major target, with 9,609 deaths reported – by far the largest toll of any professional group.

 

 

Civilians killed by US-led coalition

 

US forces killed far more Iraqi civilians than any other members of the US-led coalition, including various Iraqi military forces acting with or independently of them.3 The data on US forces killings show:

 

Total deaths from coalition forces:

 

15,141 (13%) of all documented civilian deaths were reported as being directly caused by the US-led coalition.

 

Children killed by coalition forces:

 

Of the 4,040 civilian victims of US-led coalition forces for whom age data was available, 1,201 (29%) were children.

 

 

  • Iraq Body Count 2003-2011 — 114,212

 

  • Iraq War Logs new ‘Civilian’ and comparable ‘Host Nation’ remaining – central estimate — 13,750

 

  • Iraq War Logs ‘Host Nation’ combatant – central estimate — 5,575

 

  • Iraq War Logs ‘Enemy’ (minus IBC overlaps) – central estimate — 20,499

 

  • Insurgents killed June-December 2003 — 597

 

  • Insurgents killed May 2004 — 652

 

  • Insurgents & Iraqi soldiers killed March 2009 — 59

 

  • Insurgents & Iraqi soldiers killed 2010–2011 – 2,187

 

  • TOTAL IRAQI — 157,531

 

  • US & Coalition military killed 2003–2011 — 4,802

 

  • TOTAL — 162,333

 

Official statistics

 

Official figures released monthly by Iraqi ministries continue to be lower than IBC’s, as in previous years, and this year more so than last. 7 However, longer-term official figures released in 2009 by the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights show somewhat higher totals than IBC for 2004-6. This indicates, as does the WikiLeaks-published US military database, that a full accounting for the entire period from 2003 will be above, not below, IBC’s present count. Unfortunately official Iraqi data is presented in aggregate form, whereas IBC’s numbers are obtained from incidents individually listed on its website. This not only makes them open to public scrutiny for verification or amendment, but would allow item-by-item cross-referencing against other, similarly detailed sources.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Iraqi deaths from violence 2003–2011; Iraq Body Count; First published 1/2/12)

 

Aisha the reality about war is this: WAR IS HELL.

 

The history of war demonstrates civilians – innocent and not so innocent sympathizers to the enemy – is an inevitable reality. When you say Americans kill civilian men, women and children, it is a true statement. BUT it is also true that not only have Muslims killed Christians and other religious minorities in in Muslim dominated populations, they have killed themselves.

 

One thing to consider in Aisha’s concerns about civilian deaths by American hands IS THIS: The United States of America would not have invaded Afghanistan if the Taliban government had not stood by Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda after about 3,000 (plus) civilians on American soil with hijacked jet airliners on September 11, 2001 (WE call that cowardly infamous day “911”). If that attack had never occurred on American soil, our military would never have invaded Afghanistan. And if we never invaded Afghanistan, it is unlikely the U.S. would have invaded Iraq based on rumors of Weapons of Mass Destruction being manufactured by Saddam Hussein.

 

Aisha on a personal note I have to ask: What makes you think Christians and Jews can live continuously in peace side by side? Are you not aware that your prophet Muhammad’s last words in the Quran was to kill Christians and Jews? According Islamic theology, Muhammad’s last words abrogate any previous words of peace toward those he called the People of the Book.

 

Do you hear without cringing the Church bells ringing calling Christians to assemble and worship God openly and with loud reverence? How many Jewish Synagogues operate openly in Pakistan or any Muslim dominated society? What happens in Pakistan if a Christian publicly announces Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only path to Salvation from a Satan dominated world? You have to realize a Christian not brainwashed by centuries of Islamic Supremicism would tell a Muslim that Muhammad was a false prophet for claiming Jesus was not the Son of God?

 

If you want more trust from Americans that consider themselves Christians and/or Jews, Muslim must reform their theology to not condemn others for blaspheming Islam. Just as Christians in America not knowing just how intolerant Islam is, are more than willing to accept a Mosque, Synagogue, Buddhist Temple or even a brainwashing religious cult to be on the same street as a Church. Christians may not like the idea and perhaps protest such a building that denies Christ as the Son of God, but Christians would not riot en masse over the situation resulting assault, property damage or murder.

 

Something to think about Aisha next time your news tells your peaceful Muslim/Christian community that Christians were slaughtered because they may have offended the Quran, Islam, Allah or Muhammad.

 

JRH 1/19/17

Please Support NCCR