- Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor and one of the most prominent Muslim lawyers in Britain, warned that an “industry” of Islamist groups in the country is undermining the fight against terrorism. He singled out the Islamist-dominated Muslim Council of Britain and also condemned “self-appointed” community leaders whose sole agenda was to present Muslims “as victims and not as those who are potentially becoming radicals.”
- Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, charged London Mayor Sadiq Khan with “appeasing jihadists” for authorizing the Al-Quds Day march.
- More than 40 foreign jihadists have used human rights laws to remain in Britain, according to an unpublished report delayed by the Home Office. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10742/islam-multiculturalism-britain-june
- ‘What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Linda Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not “justice.”
- Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women? That is why Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10669/islamic-feminism-sarsour
To get the full impact read the entire article. For this woman to lead a women’s march is unthinkable to a rational thinking person. But who on the left is rational let alone thinking?
The article below is one you will have to really search for because the mainline news media will not carry it. Why? Because it is in opposition to the Islam they are protecting!
‘The women’s rights activist Seyran Ates has opened a mosque for liberal Muslims in Berlin with the same mind. In the Ibn-Rushd-Goethe Mosque, women and men preach and preach equal rights. It is to be open to Sunnis, Shiites and followers of other Islamic faiths. Women do not have to wear a headscarf when praying.
She felt discriminated against in the existing German mosque communities as a woman, Ates explained her project on Friday. Abdel-Hakim Ourghi, a member of the project’s Islamologists, said: “This mosque is a way of redefining the Muslims.”‘ http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/berlin/moabit-liberale-ibn-rushd-goethe-moschee-ist-eroeffnet-27804286
This woman is under 24 hour police protection because her life is in danger from the Islam that Obama and his ilk desire to have!
‘June 1. A Syrian migrant was stabbed to death in Oldenburg by another Syrian because he was eating ice cream during Ramadan. The murder, which occurred in broad daylight in a busy pedestrian shopping area, was just the latest example of Islamic law, Sharia, being enforced on German streets.
June 2. Around one million non-Europeans living in Germany are now on welfare, an increase of 124% in just one year, according to new statistics from the Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit). The top welfare beneficiaries are from: Syria (509,696); Turkey (276,399); Iraq (110,529) and Afghanistan (65,443).
June 2. Police temporarily halted the annual Rock am Ring music festival in Nürburg because of a possible jihadist threat. Authorities asked the 90,000 visitors to leave the concert grounds in a “controlled and calm” manner. The move was based on “concrete leads which do not allow us to eliminate a possible terror threat,” the police said.
June 3. Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann called on Germany’s BfV domestic intelligence agency to begin surveilling minors suspected of being involved with Islamist groups:
“I would strongly urge for the age limit for surveillance to be lowered throughout Germany. Minors have already committed serious acts of violence. Normally, the domestic intelligence agency in Bavaria would not place children under surveillance. But if there is concrete evidence that a 12-year-old is with an Islamist group, we have to be able to monitor them, too.”
June 4. Mostafa J., a 41-year-old asylum seeker from Afghanistan, stabbed to death a five-year-old Russian at a refugee shelter in Arnschwang. The Afghan, who had been arguing with the boy’s 47-year-old mother, was shot to death by police after a standoff. It later emerged that the man had a criminal history in Germany and should have been deported but was not. In October 2009, for example, a court in Munich sentenced Mostafa J. to six years in prison for arson. In July 2011, he received a deportation order, but in 2014 he fooled a judge into believing that he had converted to Christianity and would be killed if he were deported to Afghanistan.
June 5. A study conducted by the Hanns Seidel Foundation, a think tank affiliated with Bavaria’s Christian Social Union, found that half the asylum seekers in Bavaria subscribe to classic anti-Semitic views about Jewish power. Around 60% of Afghans, 53% of Iraqis and 52% of Syrians said Jews wield too much influence.
June 7. A 27-year-old migrant from Syria stabbed and killed a Red Cross mental health counselor in Saarbrücken. The attacker and the psychologist allegedly got into an argument during a therapy session at a counselling center for traumatized refugees.
June 9. A court in Cottbus sentenced a 32-year-old Chechen migrant named Rashid D. to 13 years in prison for slitting his wife’s throat and throwing her out of the second-floor window of their apartment. The couple’s five children now live in Chechnya with their grandparents. The man was charged with manslaughter rather than murder because, according to the court, the “honor killing” was done in the heat of passion: the man thought that his wife had been unfaithful.
June 12. A 44-year-old migrant from Syria named Sultan K. was arrested at his home in Bullenhausen on charges of being a member of the Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group. Police said that the man’s three brothers, Ahmed K. (51), Mustafa K. (41) and Abdullah K. (39), were also suspected of being members of al-Nusra. The arrest confirmed fears that jihadists posing as refugees have gained access to Germany.
June 12. Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann called on three German states — Berlin, Bremen and North Rhine-Westphalia — to introduce random police spot checks. Local laws against “racial profiling” prohibit police in the three states from stopping and identifying individuals. Hermann called it a “blatant security gap that urgently needs to be closed.” He also said he wanted to see random checks extended in border areas, around airports, railway stations and rest-stops, as well as on highways that lead in and out of the country. At the moment, such checks are only allowed within 30 kilometers (20 miles) of German borders. Parliamentary spokesman Stephan Mayer said:
“The demand of Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann to finally introduce so-called spot-checks in the states of Berlin, Bremen and North Rhine-Westphalia is completely and utterly justified. Given the basically open borders in Europe, random checks are a necessary instrument for preventing terrorists, criminals and illegal immigrants from entering the country.”
June 13. The newspaper, Bild, posted on its website a film — “Chosen and Excluded: Jew Hatred in Europe” — that was censored by the Franco-German television outlet ARTE because it showed Islamic-animated anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred in all walks of European life. Julian Reichelt, Bild‘s online editor-in-chief, said:
“The TV documentary proves the rampant, in part socially acceptable Jew-hatred, for which there are only two words: disgusting and shameful. It is suspected that the documentary is not being shown on television because it is politically unsuitable and because the film shows an anti-Semitic worldview in wide parts of society that is disturbing. Our historical responsibility requires us to decisively counter the unspeakable truth that this film establishes.”
June 14. A 33-year-old migrant from Syria stabbed and seriously injured his ex-wife at a supermarket in Cologne. He also stabbed his 13-year-old son after the boy intervened to protect his mother.
June 15. A 21-year-old migrant from Nigeria went on a rampage after the manager of a public swimming pool in Rosenheim repeatedly told him that hygiene regulations prohibited him from swimming in his underwear. After police arrived, the Nigerian attacked an officer. He was arrested for refusing to obey a police officer.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10656/germany-islam-multiculturalism-june
With the nutters that presently are leading the West (exception is Trump) the above will only grow worse.
Are there ligitimate reasons why many do not trust those of the Islamic faith? For instance ‘During the month of Ramadan alone, the world witnessed 160 Islamic attacks in 29 countries, in which 1627 people were murdered and 1824 injured.’ At the same time ‘…Australian officials rush to declare that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, revealingly they have referred to Islam or Islamic culture to exonerate Muslims on several occasions. In April, despite pleading guilty to sexually assaulting eight women and girls on a beach in Queensland, a young Afghan man was acquitted. The reason for the acquittal: “Cultural differences”. According to the judge, “seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up”. The teen received two years’ probation without being convicted of anything.’
Then there is Labor MP ‘Anne Aly, Australia’s first female Muslim Member of Parliament’ who ‘said that racial-discrimination laws should be expanded to cover insults based on religion as well. The Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, has voiced similar opinions.’
Then there are those Muslims who ‘have decided to create a “safe space” on their own, segregated from the rest of Australian society. In Brisbane, the Australian International Islamic College is planning an exclusively Muslim enclave, including a mosque covering 1,970 square meters; a three-storey elder-care and residential building, 3,000 square meters of retail space and 120 residential apartments, in addition to new classrooms and a childcare center for 2,000 students. The existing site is already home to the college, which caters to students from kindergarten to 12th grade. So much for “multiculturalism”.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10604/australia-madness
It is hard to believe but the Islamic Council of Victoria ‘has called for funding for federal counter-terrorism and anti-extremism programs be side-tracked, and to instead put the focus on these so-called “safe spaces”.’ These safe spaces are needed because Muslim young people ‘“are feeling more emotionally overloaded” and a “safe space is needed for them to meet and talk about a range of issues.”’ https://tenplay.com.au/news/national/may-2017/peak-islamic-group-wants-funding-for-safe-space-for-youth-to-rage-and-vent
Is it justified to fear Islam as there are an increasing number of Muslims gaining positions within government and mainline media? Muslims claim to be a minority but that is only because they are in Western nations built on Christian and European values! This Muslim “minority” could have gone to any one of the 50 or 60 totally Islamic countries in this world but NO they chose to come to a non-Islamic country! Why? Why go to a country where sharia is NOT the law of the land?
As you watch the video remember these Muslims are only a minority because they chose NOT to go to one of the 50 or 60 totally Islamic nations that favour Islam but restrict the freedom of anyone not a Muslim, behead Christians, will not allow Christian churches, will not allow Bibles etc. etc.
Are all Bibles the same? Does it really make any difference what English Bible you use? The answer to question one is; if they are different they are not the same. The answer to question two is; do you want a Bible with all that God spoke or only what man thinks God spoke?
Dr. Boys wrote ‘Recently, a highly trained and very successful New Jersey pastor announced that he would be preaching the following week in his Gospel of John series but would not deal with John 7:53-8:11–the woman taken in adultery who was forgiven by Christ. The pastor, very close to me, wrote, “we conclude without doubt that John 7:53-8:11 was not part of the gospel of John as the Apostle wrote it.” I disagree. There is plenty of doubt.
I believe that pastor, far more qualified than I, was wrong. In a discussion with him or other scholars about biblical manuscripts, I would feel like a mule at the Kentucky Derby. But he is still wrong. In fact, he has to be wrong because God promised to preserve His Word. If He did not, then the Bible is untrue, unreliable, and unnecessary.
Even though that pastor is my very special first grandchild (and the father of four precious great grandchildren), he is still wrong! Of course, he knows my position on this issue.
He also suggested that pastors need to know the biblical languages in order to provide correct instructions to church members; however, if pastors know those languages, they must use the correct manuscripts and reject the corrupt ones. But his suggestion smacks of Roman Catholics who made it illegal for members to keep a copy of the Bible in their vernacular. The Catholics were to come to the priest for a “correct” interpretation. One reason God gave us the Bible in our language was so we could all become Bereans who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” While it is good to know the original languages, it is not a requirement to be an effective pastor.
Some pertinent questions about the Bible’s reliability will be helpful: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God lead and direct men to write a perfect book? Of course, the question demands a positive answer. Question two: Could a sovereign, all-powerful God, after directing men to write a perfect Bible, then keep scribes and translators from error? Again, the answer must be positive. Third question: Why would a sovereign, all-powerful God direct men to produce a perfect Bible to give mankind directions for life and death, and not preserve its perfection?
Pastors who take the modern approach tell us that the Bible is perfect in the “originals” but they seldom tell their audience that no one has seen the “originals” in 2000 years! Why would God give man the “originals” for a few years and leave following generations with an imperfect book? Why give the human race a perfect book then take it from us?
The disputed passage belongs in the Bible; if the Bible is not reliable in John 7 and 8, it is not reliable in John 3 on which personal salvation rests. The Bible is the Words of the Living God which will stand forever. If our critics are correct and we do not have an available, accurate, and authoritative Word then where on the face of the earth can we find His will?
Admittedly, the issue is one that good, great, and godly scholars have debated for centuries. One of the earliest objections to the John passage is that Christ seems to be abrogating the Old Testament law requiring death for adultery. Ancient Jews were fearful that Christ’s leniency might give succor to their wives about adultery! Ambrose (died 420) mentioned this in a sermon on David and Bathsheba condemning those who were critical of Christ and those who excised the passage. So the passage was in the Bibles of the early 400s.
Many other Latin Fathers including John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo all speak of the passage as being canonical! Augustine (died 430) said some scribes removed the passage because it might seem that Christ was nonchalant about adultery, but Augustine did not advocate removing it from Scripture.
Jerome (died 420), who translated the Latin Vulgate, agreed the passage was legitimate and left it in his translation. Furthermore, he says that the disputed passage was found in “many Greek and Latin manuscripts” in Rome and the Latin West, late in the 4th century.
However, an overzealous scribe decided it would be best to remove the passage rather than cause concern and possibly encourage loose living with scriptural justification! Such scribes were guilty of taking away from the Word of God which is dangerous.
The disputed passage is included in the 1611 KJV, in the 1587 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishop’s Bible, 1539 Great Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, 1535 Coverdale Bible, 1526 Tyndale Bible, and 1382 Wycliffe Bible. Modern Bibles omit it, footnote it, or bracket it so that readers get the message: it is not reliable. It is fake news, a false story by fallible writers.
All liberals and many Evangelicals teach that the John passage should not be in the Bible, yet the new translations keep putting it in the Bible! The RSV even took it out causing a furor, then replaced it in a later edition to make people happy and to continue selling Bibles! (Is it cynical to suggest that modern translations are all about money?) Modern translators know that removing that famous story would precipitate rebellion, revolution, and ruin in their Bible market. So they knowingly use a passage that practically all their liberal experts agree should not be in the Bible! If a passage does not belong in the Bible (according to their research and convictions), they should do the principled thing, but modern translators have taken a stand like a crippled chicken. They place the disputed passage in their translations because of cash, cowardice, and convenience.
There are some reputable scholars who agree with my grandson about whether or not the passage belongs in John’s Gospel. Among them are: Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris, Merrill Tenney, D. A. Carson, Ed Blum, Colin Kruse, John Piper, R. C. Lenski, Alfred Edersheim, G. Campbell Morgan, and A. T. Robertson.
Some in the above camp consider the defense of the passage and defense of the KJV a “cancerous sore,” “cultic,” “near cultic,” and “deplorable.” Such “scholars” are, in my opinion, “deplorable.”
Other scholars accept the passage as scriptural: Dean John William Burgon, Zane Hodges, D. A. Waite, David Otis Fuller, Edward F. Hills, A. W. Pink, R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James Boice, J. C. Ryle, and John Calvin. So, there are good, highly qualified men on both sides of this issue.
Evidently, there is some doubt. It is not as clear as the critics say.
According to the number of manuscripts that have and don’t the passage, 1,495 Greek manuscripts include the John passage or part of it, and 267 do not include it. Moreover, the 267 manuscripts are very early. Most people are impressed with the “earliest” manuscripts but valid, original manuscripts were in the hands of early church fathers who quoted from them from A.D. 150 forward! They quoted, for example, from the last twelve verses of Mark so how could they quote from manuscripts they didn’t hold in their hands? Manuscript date is part of the equation, but it is non-determinative. Manuscripts should be accepted unless proved defective.
Even Aristotle’s dictum supports that approach. He said, “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” However, modern translators think they are more trustworthy than the document in question, but I wouldn’t trust them to walk my dog!
The fathers of modern Bible translations, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) declared, “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” These so-called earliest and most reliable manuscripts were polluted at an early age by the Gnostics whose headquarters were in Alexandria, Egypt–the same city where the Vatican manuscript arose. When the Gnostics didn’t agree with some doctrine or passage, they either subtracted it, or changed it in some way to fit their heretical theology. Hence the production of the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts.
Westcott and Hort, like many liberals, gush over the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts but the earliest are not always the most reliable. Both men were unbelieving Anglican priests.
It should also be remembered that the main reason there are so many older manuscripts extant is because they were avoided by the early church leaders because the documents were corrupt. They didn’t get worn out and thus survived to be found and used to confuse Christians today.
Moreover, the “earliest” and “most reliable” manuscripts are identified as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the fourth century. Westcott and Hort assumed that both manuscripts were far superior and since those manuscripts did not have the John passage, that was enough for them. However, traditional Greek manuscripts preceded the 4th century manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and were quoted by many church fathers such as Irenaeus who wrote from 150 A.D.! Since very early church fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 for example, then it is false to claim that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the oldest known manuscripts.
But it gets even worse for proponents of modern translations. Dean John Burgon was a famous scholar and Bible defender (died 1888) and he declared that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among “the most corrupt copies in existence.” Older does not equal reliable.
According to Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150! He also declared of the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) from the 4th Century: “From the number of errors, one cannot affirm that it is very carefully written.”
Of the Codex Vaticanus (B) from the 4th Century, he declares that a marked feature is the great number of omissions and calculates that whole words or clauses are left out!
Not a good recommendation for the much vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus–from a scholar recognized as an expert by both sides of the controversy.
Most readers do not know of this Bible disagreement in Fundamentalist and Evangelical ranks. Most religious leaders do not believe the KJV is totally reliable while many do. However, I have noticed for many years the tendency of both sides to demonize the other. Those critical of the KJV are often very arrogant and vicious in their opposition, even calling us “cultists.” They quickly slide by the fact that many of our persuasion hold degrees just as reputable as theirs.
And on the other side, some in our group give good ammunition to the other side by making irresponsible and ridiculous claims. Some claim the KJV is “better than the Greek”; others declare than the KJV must be used in preaching or a person cannot be born again! There are devoted dummies on both sides of the issue.
If a man tells me he sincerely wants to know about eternal things, I will send him to the King James Bible for the truth. I tell him that it is God’s instruction manual for mankind which was accurately translated into English from the reliable and preserved Hebrew and Greek texts and preserved by God therefore, is totally reliable.
All the modern versions are based on corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the work of evolutionists Westcott and Hort, radical unbelievers. They were Anglican scholars who never missed a chance to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Bible; but they did not disprove it. According to Dr. Jack Moorman’s book on Bible manuscripts, Westcott and Hort’s Vatican and Sinai manuscripts of the New Testament contain more than 8,000 differences with the traditional text underlying the King James Bible!
I can’t think of anything more shattering than for congregations to be told that the Bible on their laps is full of mistakes, misquotes, and misinformation. It is not if it is the KJV.
All right, for sake of argument, I could be wrong. If I have placed too much confidence in the Word of God, I will discover that at the Judgment Seat of Christ. I suppose Christ will say, “Don, you were wrong about the KJV being totally reliable. You were too committed to my Word!” I believe He will correct my error but with a smile and nod.
After all, I have only convinced people to place too much reliance on the Word of God–not the worse sin to commit; however, those who burn incense to the corrupt modern translations are guilty of taking away from the Word of the living God who promised to preserve it forever!
If I am to be wrong, it will be in favor of the Word that He promised in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: …Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Either He did or He didn’t!
So, honest people will look at the issue and come down on the side that is most convincing; however, it takes character to change when one has gone on record for most of his or her life. It’s difficult to admit a mistake. Tolstoy expressed this when he wrote, “I know that most men…can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
However, having a reliable Bible is not a simple issue but it is sublime. I’ve made my decision and if I’m wrong, Christ will correct me. Same with you!’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/does-the-bible-contain-fake-news-and-false-stories-by-fallible-writers
‘IF YOU thought it was cold at your place last night, spare a thought for the people of Goulburn.
The NSW Southern Tablelands city shivered through the night as temperatures plummeted as low as minus 10 degrees Celsius, with the apparent temperature scale hitting minus 13.1.
And it wasn’t the only place driven to cranking the fire and powering up the heaters.
Much of south eastern Australia was held in winter’s icy grip.
Bathurst froze with the temperature hitting -5.7 at 6am, in NSW’s Hunter Valley Scone hit -3.1 at 7am, on the Northern Tableland’s Glen Innes dropped to -4.8 at 5am, while in the south Bega hit -2.8 at 6am.
In Sydney it was north-western suburb Richmond that hit the lowest temperature of -0.8 at 6:30am.
In the Illawarra Moss Vale dropped to -4.9 at 7:30am, while in the Snowy Mountains it was certainly frosty with Bombala hitting minus 5.7 at 7am, in the Central West Cowra dropped to -4.9.
Heading south and Hay hit -6.3 at 7:30am, Braidwood shivered at -7.2 at 7am, and Canberra dropped to -8 at 6:30am.
In Victoria it was a similar story with Swan Hill dropped to minus four at 7am, Horsham hit -1.2 at 8am, Avalon dropped to -3.6 at 6:30am, while Bendigo dropped to -1.2.’ http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/4764873/winter-freeze-hits-south-eastern-australia/?cs=2452
‘”We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid,” he told BBC News.
“Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it’s one we can prevent if we act now. By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children.”‘ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726
The sad part is that even those who are freezing through another typical Australian winter believe Hawking and the other climate change global warming dots!
John Bolton has written that ‘The headlines out of Syria are eye-catching: There are signs the Assad government may be planning another chemical attack. American pilots have struck forces threatening our allies and shot down a Syrian plane and Iranian-made drones. The probability of direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia has risen. Yet the coverage of these incidents and the tactical responses that have been suggested obscure the broader story: The slow-moving campaign against Islamic State is finally nearing its conclusion — yet major, long-range strategic issues remain unresolved.
The real issue isn’t tactical. It is instead the lack of American strategic thinking about the Middle East after Islamic State. Its defeat will leave a regional political vacuum that must be filled somehow. Instead of reflexively repeating President Obama’s errors, the Trump administration should undertake an “agonizing reappraisal,” in the style of John Foster Dulles, to avoid squandering the victory on the ground.
First, the U.S. ought to abandon or substantially reduce its military support for Iraq’s current government. Despite retaining a tripartite veneer of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs, the capital is dominated by Shiites loyal to Iran. Today Iraq resembles Eastern Europe in the late 1940s, as the Soviet anaconda tightened its hold. Extending Baghdad’s political and military control into areas retaken from ISIS simply advances Tehran’s power. This cannot be in America’s interest.
Iraq’s Kurds have de facto independence and are on the verge of declaring it de jure. They fight ISIS to facilitate the creation of a greater Kurdistan. Nonetheless, the Kurds, especially in Syria and Turkey, are hardly monolithic. Not all see the U.S. favorably. In Syria, Kurdish forces fighting ISIS are linked to the Marxist PKK in Turkey. They pose a real threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity, even if it may seem less troubling now that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s plans have turned so profoundly contrary to the secular, Western-oriented vision of Kemal Atatürk.
Second, the U.S. should press Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf monarchies for more troops and material assistance in fighting ISIS. America has carried too much of the burden for too long in trying to forge Syria’s opposition into an effective force. Yet even today the opposition could charitably be called “diverse.” It includes undeniably terrorist elements that are often hard to distinguish from the “moderates” the U.S. supports. Getting fresh contributions from Arab allies would rebalance the opposition, which is especially critical if the U.S. turns away, as it should, from reliance on the Iraqi forces dominated by Tehran.
Third, the Trump administration must take a clear-eyed view of Russia’s intervention. The Syrian mixing bowl is where confrontation between American and Russian forces looms. Why is Russia active in this conflict? Because it is aiding its allies: Syria’s President Bashar Assad and Iran’s ayatollahs. Undeniably, Russia is on the wrong side. But Mr. Obama, blind to reality, believed Washington and Moscow shared a common interest in easing the Assad regime out of power. The Trump administration’s new thinking should be oriented toward a clear objective: pushing back these Iranian and Russian gains.
Start with Iran. Tehran is trying to cement an arc of control from its own territory, through Baghdad-controlled Iraq and Mr. Assad’s Syria, to Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon. This would set the stage for the region’s next potential conflict: Iran’s Shiite coalition versus a Saudi-led Sunni alliance.
The U.S.-led coalition, enhanced as suggested above, needs to thwart Iran’s ambitions as ISIS falls. Securing increased forces and financial backing from the regional Arab governments is essential. Their stakes are as high as ours — despite the contretemps between Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and others) — but their participation has lagged. The U.S. has mistakenly filled the gap with Iraqi government forces and Shiite militias.
Washington is kidding itself to think Sunnis will meekly accept rule by Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government or Syria’s Alawite regime. Simply restoring today’s governments in Baghdad and Damascus to their post-World War I boundaries would guarantee renewed support for terrorism and future conflict. I have previously suggested creating a new, secular, demographically Sunni state from territory in western Iraq and eastern Syria. There may well be other solutions, but pining for borders demarcated by Europeans nearly a century ago is not one of them.
At the same time, the U.S. must begin rolling back Russia’s renewed presence and influence in the Middle East. Russia has a new air base at Latakia, Syria, is involved in combat operations, and issues diktats about where American warplanes in the region may fly. For all the allegations about Donald Trump and Russia, the president truly in thrall to Moscow seems to have been Mr. Obama.
Russia’s interference, particularly its axis with Mr. Assad and Tehran’s mullahs, critically threatens the interests of the U.S., Israel and our Arab friends. Mr. Assad almost certainly would have fallen by now without Russia’s (and Iran’s) assistance. Further, Moscow’s support for Tehran shatters any claim of its truly being a partner in fighting radical Islamic terrorism, which got its modern start in Iran’s 1979 revolution. Both Iran and the Assad regime remain terror-sponsoring states, only now they are committing their violence under Russia’s protective umbrella. There is no reason for the U.S. to pursue a strategy that enhances Russia’s influence or that of its surrogates.
As incidents in Syria and Iraq increasingly put American forces at risk, Washington should not get lost in deconfliction negotiations or modest changes in rules of engagement. Instead, the Trump administration should recraft the U.S.-led coalition to ensure that America’s interests, rather than Russia’s or Iran’s, predominate once ISIS is defeated.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10601/post-isis-strategy