US: America's First Lady

Like most people in 2015 hearing news of the islamist attack on an exhibition in Garland Texas, which featured artwork depicting muhamed through the years, my reaction was one of incredulity, coming only four months after the Charlie Hebdo shooting where a dozen journalists and cartoonists were killed, the 'Draw Muhammed' competition seemed a reckless and unnecessary provocation.

I was soon to learn that this was indeed a deliberate 'provocation', but in the sense that Rosa Parks had been provocative on her infamous bus ride in Montgomery Alabama, or the way that the Boston Tea Party had also been a deliberate and dangerous provocation.

During the following news cycle, three names appeared and reappeared with increasing levels of disdain, first among them was Pamela Geller; as activist and organizer in chief, she joined Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders to personify what we in the West are doing to thoroughly 'deserve' the murderous enrichment that islam bestows upon us.

Shortly after that I decided to research islam for myself, and looking back now I can see how clearly racist we are in the West. By assuming their religion is inherently peaceful, we are also assuming that it is only 'cultural' or 'ethnic' differences that make so many Muslims violent and cruel - we find it far too easy to blame the people, rather than the ideology.

After many years living in blissful ignorance, finding the truth about islam and mohamed was surprisingly simple. In the days when Google was still a trusted and impartial arbiter, a few quick searches brought the whole sorry story to light: rape, murder, robbery, slavery, deceit, torture, narcissism, pedophilia and even rumors of necrophilia - it's all there, the perfect example for ISIS and their ilk.

Needless to say, my view of the Garland Three changed significantly, and now I can readily empathize with Spencer and Wilders, but Pamela Geller and her strident Zionism remains an enigma, so I was pleased to pre-order a copy of her latest book, Fatwa: Hunted in America.

The first thing to note is that this book is not about Pamela in any trivial or personal sense. It is primarily about her fight to keep the freedoms that we all take as granted, to use her own words, she says more than once: "This is not about me", but that's a shame because I, and probably many others, would like to know a little more about 'The most dangerous woman in America'. There is some insight to her early life but it seems her mission takes precedence and she almost forgets herself. A picture does emerge over the following chapters, but this book is primarily about her struggle (jihad against Jihad?) and the vicious hostility of those she is fighting for, as much as from those whom she is fighting against.

There are lots of facts and dates, and if my preamble was news to you, then this book should serve as a concise introduction to one of the greatest threats to your current way of life. If you already know the challenges we face, then her book is an interesting compendium and reference.

It was fitting for me, that on the day I finished reading, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel, another provocative action to be sure, and one that I know will have pleased Pamela.

Saudi: A new king on the block

Saudi Arabia is now moving toward a form of 'moderate' islam. So says their new leader and who could not rejoice at such news, if it were true.

But moving towards a moderate islam confirms that there is also an immoderate islam, and also to admit that the Saudis have previously been followers of that radical ideology. Nothing new here, but I guess an admission of truth is better than continued denial.

The problem is that page one of the International Liars Manual, states that a half truth is always more convincing than a complete lie, so what are we to make of these latest claims?

A skeptic (count me in), would point to the failure of Saudi aggression in Yemen, including their support for Al Qaeda and miserable results of their arming, aiding and financing terrorism in Syria, Iraq and almost everywhere that islamic terrorism exists. Could these disasters have something to do with the new apparent humanity of the Saudi leadership?

That Russia and Iran have emerged stronger from this Saudi destructiveness might also have something to do with the Arabian change of direction, and although we may need to wait a while longer for proof, we should not allow optimism to overrule caution, because the Saudis have a word for telling non-Muslims what they want to hear about the moderateness of their religion.

The American public, especially under Trump, are unlikely to give Saudi Arabia the sort of support they demand, while they continue with their murderous, misogynistic and dehumanizing ways, so is this the real motivation for embracing such wonderful freedoms as letting women drive?

As with the abolition of slavery in 1962 when US pressure forced an earlier flirtation with moderation, we should not underestimate the political agility of Saudi rulers, nor should we assume that one minuscule movement towards humane behaviour indicates anything more than a single, small step in the right direction.

US: Speaking against hate

For anyone concerned with combating Jihad terrorism, there are some interesting developments in USA.

I write now about the actual fight for hearts and minds of the good people on this planet who oppose wanton murder, enslavement and oppression, and not the mendacious platitudes of the 'War on Terror' espoused by presidents Bush and Obama.

Why this war of ideas is being fought here in the West, and not in those countries that fund and support the war against us, is still quite mysterious. And make no mistake, despite Bush's bluster, this is a war that was declared against us long before 9/11 and the resulting military adventures.

One of the leading figures in this, the real war on terror, is Robert Spencer, author and Director of Jihad Watch, and he combines those efforts with speaking engagements around the world, where he tries to educate and inform those who will listen, about the dangers we all face.

On 14th November he is scheduled to address the College Republicans at Stanford University where one might assume he will be met by young and inquiring minds, all of whom have a vested interest in finding out about the growing threat to what is, after all, their very own future. But the event has been met with stout resistance, such that it appears opposing Islamic terrorism, is itself a crime.

Given the high repute of Stanford, we could still hope for some coherent and well reasoned objections rather than the usual personal insults that trying to save humanity usually engenders, and one piece that caught my eye, was from a young Jewish student who equated counter terrorism with antisemitism; an interesting juxtaposition, but she had reasons which deserve looking into.

She cites a seminar where they discuss the notion that 'hatred accumulates', saying that:-

"Nazism was only a thinkable outcome because hateful ideologies," ...[I'm excluding a small reference here which is probably libelous]... "gained widespread acceptance and intensity throughout the history of the Western world."

While this is a viable conclusion - that small hatreds become reinforced and grow over time - she appears to take another step, and suggest that hatred for one group or race, can quickly turn against another, and again, this is a valid conclusion but it supposes that the person or group committing this nastiness was already looking for something to hate, so that for them, today's Muslim is simply tomorrow's Jew:-

"Any platform for Islamophobia is well-equipped to double as a platform for anti-Semitism."

Unfortunately, the title of Spencer's latest book 'Confessions of an Islamophobe' does give some leeway for her to use the islamophobic smear, even if the book's purpose is to dissect and debunk the term, but hey, that's showbiz.

In any case, her use of that term here is merely to signify Muslim hatred; but when did opposition to (or even hatred of) Jihad terror, become hatred of Muslims, or is she saying that all Muslims are engaged in, or support, Jihad terror?

The other problem with her theory is this:-

If it's OK to hate people who one perceives as themselves being hateful, doesn't that mean one has started down the slippery slope of 'hatred accumulation', and that same one is subsequently just waiting to have their hatred re-directed towards some poor and unsuspecting innocent?

In truth, as a regular reader and commenter on Jihad Watch, I can testify that Robert Spencer is probably the least hateful person I have encountered online, and given the horrendous subject matter that he deals with on a daily basis, that is little short of astounding.

Russia: 100 years later

The October Revolution happened in November, and followed the February Revolution...confused?

Well don't worry, because what really matters is that an ideological and popular uprising soon turned to bloody barbarism, and that always seems to be the pattern.

From the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, to the Arab Spring's shift into Winter, euphoria turns to dread, as the vacuum caused when existing political and legal structures fail, is quickly filled by those who were kept in check by those very same forces of law and order.

What does this mean to the West today?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, which was seeded in those dark days of 1917, we may feel confident that we can withstand any ideological threat, either from the far Left or from the near East, but it may not be the ideology that we should fear, because the real threat comes, not from violent ideologies, but from the void left by the accompanying collapse of Law and Order.

So, when crimes go unpunished while reporting criminality is itself a crime, revolution is probably already upon us.

US: A day to remember

Halloween 2017, eight people murdered and 11 injured by an islamic terrorist proving what diversity can mean for the unwary.

Legend has it, that on the same day, 500 years earlier, Martin Luther published his thesis on the ails and ills of the Roman Catholic Church. His work was soon reprinted and distributed to begin what we now call the Protestant Reformation.

Whatever we think of the effects of that publication and the subsequent upheaval it initiated, there is no dispute that the words and ideas expressed resulted in a seismic shift in Christian thinking and history.

Back to the Manhattan murderer:-

He departs his killing machine, brandishing 'weapons' designed, not to kill more people, but to provoke his demise by a policeman's bullet, and entry to whatever his religion calls an afterlife; so convinced is he of martyrdom, that he shouts aloud that his god is greater [than that of those he has just slain] and waits to be shot dead. This doesn't happen, but his commitment to jihad remains.

And what does his community say? Are they appalled and dismayed by his actions, or are they committed to preserving their treasured status of victimhood?

So a question arises. Why does such a heinous crime, in the name of a 'religion of peace', not produce an outcry from his coreligionists?

If one document could so fundamentally change Christianity, how can so many acts of barbarism (more than 30,000 since 9/11), not change islam? And think about 9/11, almost 3000 killed and over 6000 injured, just a few blocks from this latest attack. Where was islam's introspection and debate following that earlier rendition of allahu akbar?

Surely, no true Religion of Peace could possibly continue unashamed and unabashed in the face of such brutality, without at least examining the possibility that so many koranic verses extolling the virtues of murder and mutilation might be having an effect on it's followers?

It might be a 1400 year old question, but it still requires asking: when will islam have it's own reformation?

Or to put it another way, just how bad does this have to get?

Myanmar: A lesson for EU and US

As another IS inspired insurgency begets blood and destruction, the West appears incapable of recognizing, much less, understanding the threat of islamist expansionism.

The Saudi funded Salafist ideology that stretches out from Mecca, through the Balkans to the Caucasus,  down into Africa,  and east through Afghanistan to India and Kashmir, and on to the Philippines and China, is unrelenting and cruel. Anywhere, it seems that fundamentalist islam goes, war will soon follow.

When muslim populations grow, so inevitably the number of extremists increases, so too does the expansionist orthodoxy of Wahhabism, which provides the financial incentive and scriptural justification for murder and mayhem.

As with all the above conflicts, there are histories and versions of history, which each side will cite to validate their own position. There will also be crack-downs by governments and atrocities by combatants, both regular and guerrilla, and the media will take a side, based not on facts, but on who is paying the most and lobbying the hardest.

The issue for the West, though, is not who is at fault, but where will these conflicts affect next?

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the West, but never before has it claimed 'divine' sanction, and never have it's potential perpetrators been allowed to enter their avowed target populations in such unmanageable numbers.

Then what happens when our own muslim populations are so large, that the much vaunted minority of extremists, reaches sufficient numbers to threaten our stability and social cohesion?

Many on the Right will say that we have already reached this tipping point and that Sweden, France, Belgium etc are all the evidence we need to start defensive preparations in advance of the upcoming conflict; but the Left say that there's nothing wrong, and that we should welcome many thousands, or even millions, more muslims into Europe and America.

While the one viewpoint may be paranoid, the other is surely delusional.

And delusional is an apt word to describe, not just the German chancellor, but also the people who are threatening to vote her back into office.

EU: A post from afar.

Sitting here, in comfort and shade, half-way round the world and in another hemisphere, Europe looks quite different, yet uncomfortably familiar.

Spain has suffered an almost catastrophic attack, which nonetheless left many dead and many more injured.

Nothing to do with islam, of course, and that platitude continues to gather corpses.

The reaction among the people here is one of amazement that NATO countries can have so little control of their borders and societies.

The problem is seen very much as a security issue with little understanding of the problems we face.

A largely Christian continent like South America, cannot understand, how an erstwhile civilised and moral group of countries, could so quickly descend into social dysfunction.

But they do not live in Europe.

They do not live with the reality of a rampant fifth column of terrorist enablers and sympathisers, colluded and abetted by a fearful and corrupt establishment.

In this land, where using traffic indicators is considered the action of a wussy, and wearing a crash helmet, a sign of the oppressed, can have no concept of the dread of being called a racist or islamophobe.

For nations uncowed by political correctness, the issue is simple: Our people are dying, and we are doing nothing about it.

But there are many miles between us, and these incidents are seen as growing, but uncoordinated, much as our press would have us believe; the news blackout, it appears, is global, and in one respect, that is not such a bad thing.

For if they knew or asked about the rape gangs and sharia courts, there is nothing that I could begin to say in explanation, save to fall back on that old and trusted response to awkward questions:

Me no speakie da lingo.

EU: Who is defending Europe?

When Greenpeace was founded, back in 1971, their mission was simple enough, they would 'bear witness' to US nuclear testing and although that first mission was halted, they continued and are a well recognized world authority on environmental issues.

But it was not easy, and some of those intrepid fighters for all our futures, paid the ultimate price for their conviction.

Today, another renegade ship is sailing into controversy as the C-Star sails towards the Libyan coast in an attempt to end the terrible plight of refugees and migrants who are being ferried into Europe in their thousands. Those who do not perish on the journey, live mainly to regret ever setting out in the first place.

The Defend Europe project is straightforward:-

"Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal."

Simple enough, yet the media have already denounced the mission as racist, far-right extremism, and pounced on the first mainstream journalist who has attempted to meet with the crew. This is strange behaviour, because Katie Hopkins may not be everyone's favorite, but she is a known quantity and we should get an honest impression of what is actually happening.

When even Mama Merkel admits the folly of her failed policies towards unsustainable immigration, are we not entitled to know more about this voluntary attempt to uncover the real perpetrators of the human misery that continues, showing no signs of abating?

As we see here at section 30 the laws on rescue at sea are extremely vague, particularly where migrants or those claiming asylum are concerned.

"Since the “next port of call” with reference to the disembarkation of rescued persons is nowhere clearly defined, there are a number of possibilities, which would need to be further explored to clarify this concept. In many instances, especially when large numbers of rescued persons are involved, it will in effect be the nearest port in terms of geographical proximity given the overriding safety concerns..."  [Emphasis mine]

So, if it is true that NGO's are colluding with people smugglers to ferry people across the Mediterranean, rather than to the nearest geographical port, then we need to know so that we can put an end to it.

We know that International Law has fallen out of favor, and the EU appears incapable of fixing this problem, so perhaps a small band of volunteers is what's needed, regardless of their supposed political viewpoint.

US: Trivial Pursuit

The latest iteration of Trumpophobia has the placed president's son firmly in the unwanted glare of media scrutiny.

It seems that an enterprising lawyer enticed Trump Jr to attend a meeting on the pretext of serving up some juicy information on Hilary Clinton from the 'Crown Prosecutor of Russia', that such a post does not exist seems to have escaped everyone, but to be fair to the junior Trump, it's difficult to imagine who could resist such an opportunity.

Apparently the meeting lasted just a few minutes before he realized he'd been scammed, and left.

It is now being portrayed as a serious security incident, but I wonder what else was he supposed to do?

Should he have ignored the suggestion that Russia had sensitive information on a Presidential Candidate?

What if they had, and the Donald Jr had helped to prevent a major security incident, or if he hadn't gone to the meeting and some other catastrophe had ensued, would that have been preferable?

With the Clinton's links to foreign sponsors of terrorism common knowledge, was he not right to follow the lead, the only question is what would he have done with anything incriminating that he might have uncovered. Would he have used it for political gain, or would he have immediately turned it over to US security? We will never know the answer, but must surely give him the benefit of any doubt.

While the frenzy surrounding this nonsense continues, those politicians and pundits gleefully making all they can of the discomfort to president Trump, should be very careful about the outcome, because if the emails, texts and liaisons of their children are to be fair game for scrutiny, then I doubt that many in Washington or beyond, will escape unscathed.

US: A sickness of the mind

For some time, the practice of inventing new words by suffixing nouns to fit a narrative was an amusing tool of the tabloid press.

I remember when anyone in the UK who bothered to learn French, was called a Francophile to signify that they were not as virulently anti-French as our Thatcherite press corps would prefer.

Some people even invent such self-descriptive words, so that those money grubbers who had little interest in their family or friends, would call themselves workaholics, not just as an excuse, but as though it were actually a good thing.

Having started as a trivial amusement, this construct then took a more sinister turn when people who refused to accept the demise of USSR, became jolly Russophobes, and were left to continue as though the Berlin wall remained and International Communism was still our greatest enemy. Those who feel this is just a harmless bit of fun, might like to ask the families of the dead and injured in Boston, what they think about Russophobia, or the survivors in Eastern Ukraine after US democratization attempts.

An even more insidious use of the form arrived when anyone who opposed Jihad, or reported on the gruesome history of Mohammedism, was called Islamophobic and also racist - thus another invention, the Race of Islam, arrived.

But, despite my scepticism, I have now relented, and accept that there is a real condition of phobia gripping America (and much of Europe too), and in it's latest and most blatant iteration should be called out for what it is; Trumpophobia.

US: Excuses, excuses, excuses

As the White house prepares it's excuse for another attack on the Syrian government, we needn't look far to find the reason why.

With Assad gaining ground, and IS facing defeat if not yet extinction, the US imperative to protect it's investment in the destabilization process and keep a foothold in the region seems to outweigh any desire or rational thought in imagining what happens next.

The middle East is littered with the results of unintended consequences of outside, and particularly Western, actions. Each one, it appears, more catastrophic than the previous.

But it all seemed to start so well.

Afghanistan fell quickly in the post 9-11 consensus, and, with  Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda sent into hiding, there was a real chance of bringing some stability and order to the region, but Bush Jnr. had other ideas, so forgetting Afghanistan, and with Blair in tow and WMD as the excuse, he decided to invade Iraq and we are now experiencing how that turned out.

All the while, we have ignored the Gulf States and Turks funding and supplying the terrorists, with the excuse of supporting our 'allies' (who just happen to also be our ideological, and sometimes physical, enemies).

I suggest that president Trump should not take too much comfort from knowing that somewhere in Washington someone is busily working on the excuse for when it all goes horribly wrong, again.

US: Who is in charge?

When president Trump announced that he was relinquishing control of the US military, it was met with neither astonishment nor outrage.

Understandably so, because the Left were delighted to see the President's authority diminished, while the Right were equally ecstatic that their military were to be unleashed on the wider world.

 And the results of this ability to supposedly tackle Islamic State more decisively?

The first was to attack a Syrian army convoy and the second was to shoot down a Syrian air force jet, anyone spot the pattern?

Whatever claptrap is spoken about warnings given, and encroachment etc, nobody should be fooled. Following the gratuitous salvo of 59 cruise missiles, Assad and Russia know only too well that America is disposed to strike whenever the opportunity arises, so it's difficult to believe that any significant notification was given before either attack.

None of this even begins to address the legality of hostile actions against sovereign governments, however much they may displease.

Military commanders have limited objectives, which revolve around conflict and logistical supply (more troops and weapons), for them, a period of peace is just the time spent between wars. 

There is a horrible irony that the sort of conflict president Trump was supposed to inflict upon us all, should be brought closer, not by his position of power, but by his abdication of responsibility.

Dear Donald,

It's time to take back control of your military.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief for a very good reason.

UK:No time for tears

It was impossible to escape the media saturation coverage of yesterday's election as the results were confirmed this morning, but one moment particularly caught my attention.

A group of presenters were sitting around their TV studio, commenting on the contrast between the glum faced 'winner', Theresa May,  and the jubilant, though second placed, Jeremy Corbyn. A female reporter then elicited a little sympathy for May's puffy eyed demeanor by stating that 'She had obviously, probably, been crying', to which there was a respectful murmur, before the group continued their broadcast. All well and good, I thought.

 But now I feel compelled to ask: 

Did anyone, see, or was there ever even a suggestion, that Mrs May cried when she heard about the innocents killed and maimed in the Manchester bombing?

Did we witness those puffy eyes when she spoke of the London Bridge victims, or before, of those who perished and were brutalized, on the bridge outside and even at the very gates of Westminster?

This is not to be especially critical of May, or any woman in politics, for we saw the same when Mrs Clinton was defeated and when Mrs Thatcher lost her position, but we also saw a gruesome joy in the former's infamous giggle when she boasted of Gaddafi's demise, and a strange indifference to the death of more than 300 young sailors, by the later.

So what is it, do women in politics really need to be tougher than men, to the point where they cannot pretend any longer; or are tears even such a bad thing?

Perhaps if Mrs May had wept at the horrors of 7/7, she might have determined, that when she became Home Secretary she would actually do something to halt any further such atrocities and prevent other mothers, daughters and sisters from shedding their, altogether more innocent, tears.

UK: Sleeping on the front line

Most people in London are familiar with the sound of helicopters patrolling our night skies, and the occasional extended period of hovering overhead, central London all the more so, and the inhabitants of Lambeth more accustomed than most, so last night's events weren't particularly unusual, and the initial rumours of a stabbing in or around the station were nothing new for a warm Saturday night.

But news of what was happening just along the river added an altogether more ominous tone to the whirring above and sirens of emergency response vehicles passing below. Sleep, therefore, became a reluctant partner for many.

So this is what happens when ramadan comes to town?

Teresa May again called a halt to election campaigning, no doubt worried about the inevitable tough questions that she and her dhimmi cohorts will face. But, to be fair, she also seems genuinely bemused, after all, we have accepted sharia and dutifully pay the jizya, yet still these attacks keep coming with increasing regularity and violence.

 'Oh dear,' her sad little face appears to say: 'What are we to do?'

'Let's re-order the words a bit, maybe shift the emphasis a little', and thus she pulls a different face and changes the script a tad, anything it seems, except address the damned issue.

When she started talking about tackling the "safe spaces" of jihadis, I thought she was getting somewhere, but no, she wasn't talking about their mosks, but rather, some notional nooks and crannies of the Internet, where all this 'radicalization' supposedly takes place.

The weirdest thing in all this, is that she is probably not quite bought and paid for by the saudis (although their patronage surely contributes greatly to our government's mental frailties), nor is she willfully ignorant of the threat we all face, but that she really just does not get it.

This became clear when she claimed, with apparent sobriety, that the fake suicide vests were worn to create greater fear and confusion, as if anyone seeing a machete wielding muslim screaming his allegiance to lahlah, would not be enough frit, and that bystanders and victims would pause to check what the murderers were wearing.

Could somebody please advise her, and the political and police cronies who she is surrounded by, that the intention of those canisters was not to fool the public, but to ensure that the police would shoot to kill, thus expediting a fast-track exit to allah's absurd resting place, complete with bonus points for killing and being killed during this month of muslim 'piety'.

UK: Secrets R US

So the statutory period of 'mourning' is over, and our politicians have returned to their politicking before next week's general election, but what at first seemed like a genuine attempt to be respectful to the dead of Manchester, can clearly be seen now as a cruel and conscious trick to ensure that our next government would not face awkward questions about security and islamic terror.

But it all started so differently, and the days after that event were full of searching and largely honest, inquisition.

I must insist on calling it an 'event' rather than an outrage, or horrendous or any other of the usual descriptors, because anyone even vaguely familiar with the course of global jihad, will know that attacks targeting children and innocents is nothing new, or especially outrageous, and simply something which we should get used to, according to politicians, both here and abroad.

When we ask why was the immediate inquiry into Manchester so different, from all the other 'incidents'?

We are left to overwhelmingly conclude that the Truth made it different.

Unlike those horrors of the Bataclan which the French government managed to hide and deceive the world about, our special relationship with US meant that information was shared with them, even as we were being fobbed off. American media got the message, and the whistle was blown

Thus, just as our politicians, police and other sundry experts were preparing to read from their well worn scripts of a 'mentally ill',  'lone wolf', who was not 'religious', and nothing to do with refugees or islam, we got the news that he was non of these things, that he was a devout muslim, a migrant's son who had memorized the koran and attended a salafist mosk regularly in between frequent trips to Libya and who knows where else?

That such a damning profile did not affect his ability to commit his chosen crime will be cheered by liberals, muslims and other left wing activists, it is surely scant consolation to the families and victims of 22nd May.

There is another interesting consequence of the early outbreak of Truth.

It is common after these tragedies, to release bits of information in dribs and drabs, over many days following the attack, so that no proper debate ensues, and the full picture remains veiled and elusive for weeks or even months to come. But with the cat out of the bag and running loose among our political establishment, we at least found otherwise taboo subjects openly discussed, in particular, whether or not we should talk to terrorists.

Ignoring for a moment, the ludicrous conflation of jihad, with the well defined political aims of IRA and their very Western concept of terror:- i.e. to telephone a handy warning prior to detonation in order to minimize casualties; there is indeed great merit in talking to IS, for maybe then, and only then, our leaders will finally understand the scale and depth of what we are all up against.

But, I accept such a move is probably too sensitive at this time, so perhaps they will allow me to describe that conversation, because it won't be a long meeting. Our negotiators will be given a simple choice: one of either, or.

Either submit (to islam by conversion, or to dhimmitude) or die.

Syria: Assad must know.

Another chemical attack; more deaths and more confusion, familiar narratives and gross accusations made from the comfort of Western briefing rooms, with little regard for evidence or intelligence.

The crude certainty exhibited by our representatives, ignores the simplest question that we should ask before leaping to cast the Syrian leader leader as a war criminal.

Who benefits from such an attack?

The list here is interesting and revealing, and follows in no particular order...

ISIS, Al-Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, US DNC, US Republicans like Mcain & Co. and possibly a dozen or so more anti-Russian and anti-Syrian agitators in Europe and beyond.

Another question that must surely be asked:-

Why would Assad do such a thing, just when victory against the Islamic terrorists is looking assured?

So ISIS has everything to gain, while Assad has everything to lose, yet Mr Trump appears not to see the obvious in Syria, although the US know well what ISIS are capable of a few hundred miles away in Iraq.

The only certainty amid all the carnage, is that Assad is probably the one person with full access to the truth, but he's also the one person our brilliant leaders refuse to question.

US: With friends like these...

President Trump's first few days in office have surprised many, and he has managed to delight and dismay in fairly equal measure, but his first task as Commander in Chief is not an easy one.

Gone are the days when America's adversaries would test the mettle of her newest leader, and today it is her allies lining up to confront or dupe their powerful 'friend'.

We see the "President" of the European Council declaring that America is now an existential threat to Europe, although I don't recall ever voting for a European President, so the opinions of this Tusk chappie may serve little purpose, except to demonstrate why over 17 million British voters chose to leave the EU in last year's referendum.

Of much greater concern, is Poroshenko's push into Eastern Ukraine.

For all the mellowing tone towards Putin from the new administration, these latest attacks - coinciding with the largest deployment of NATO troops to Russia's border in recent years - demonstrates just how difficult it could be to reverse some of Mr. Obama's more insidious handiwork.