WATCH What These Three Kurdish Women Did When Islamic State Started The Yazidi Genocide in Iraq

The British paper Daily Mail Mail interviewed three Kurdish women who formed an all-female combat unit to avenge the massacre of the Christian Yazidi minority by Islamic State in northern Iraq.

When ISIS came to Sinjar and started to murder Yazidis, including many children and women, the three decided to leave behind their native country (Turkey) and traveled to the autonomous area in Kurdistan, Iraq.

Islamic State started the ethnic cleansing of the Yazidis in August 2014 and forced captured Yazidis to choose between conversion to Islam and death or slavery. The women were often sold as sex slaves, and men were ruthlessly murdered–often by beheading.

Deaijly, one of the Kurdish women, told the Daily Mail that “they had heard from other fighters operating in the caves in Sinjar that ISIS massacred Yazidis four days before the US airstrikes, on August 3.”

“We smuggled ourselves there from Turkey on August 5. We heard that the Peshmerga had withdrawn and we heard the children were dying on the mountain.

“It was a difficult journey from Turkey. When we came the temperatures were scorching, but we were trained for that,” Deijly told the Daily Mail.

Raparin, another member of the female Kurdish Peshmerga combat unit, said that the women sometimes killed up to ten ISIS fighters a day. Their unit was part of the Peshmerga forces that succeeded in securing a corridor through which many Yazidis managed to escape to Syria.

The women are members of the PKK, the Turkish Kurdish Workers Party, which has long fought the central government in Turkey and is classified as a terrorist movement by many Western governments and Turkey.

“We are ‘one’ with the Yazidis and will fight ISIS to take revenge for the what has happened to the women,” Deijly said.

The women told the Daily Mail that they noticed that ISIS fighters were often drugged when the Kurds managed to capture them. They also claimed that ISIS’ propaganda is stronger than their fighting capabilities.

The three also confirmed that Islamic State fighters are afraid of being killed by women because they believe that in such a case, they will not receive the reward of 70 virgins (Jannah) when they go to heaven.

“When they know women are fighting, they run away,” Roza the third Kurdish woman said.

Deijly added: “I have killed many, but I am sure all of them will not find virgins in heaven.”

As Western Journalism reported earlier, the Kurds in Syria and Iraq have proven to be the only fighting force that has been able to defeat Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, despite a severe shortage of modern weaponry.

The U.S. administration refuses to deliver weapons directly to the Kurds in Iraq and insists that all weapon deliveries go via the central government in Baghdad. The Obama administration even blocked attempts by the Gulf States to deliver weapons to the Kurds in Syria and is now again dragging its feet after it recently promised to send a resupply shipment of one hundred pallets of arms and other aid to the Kurdish YPG militia and their allies in Syria.

The Washington Post reported that “several U.S. officials say that a White House decision to approve expanded aid has been expected for more than a week. Deliberations were complicated by the debate over Russia’s recent military moves in Syria, which Moscow describes as an effort to join the fight against the extremists.”

The situation has led one U.S. official to express his frustration with the slow process of approval. He called it “analysis paralysis.”

The Kurds and their Sunni Arab allies need the weapons to launch a massive assault on Raqqa, the capital of Islamic State’s Caliphate. A force of 25,000 men and women is reportedly waiting for orders to attack the Raqqa area and is said to have secured coalition air support for the assault.

As the Washington Post correctly observed, the delay in the delivery is connected to the Russian intervention in Syria. The Obama administration is currently re-assessing its strategy in Syria because of the game-changing Russian moves, according to some observers.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights leveled harsh criticism at the U.S.-led coalition for its ‘timid’ support of the groups fighting Islamic State. The organization reported that after a full year of coalition airstrikes in Syria, Islamic State has only lost 15 square kilometers of the territories under its control.

SOHR claims that 3550 people have died as a result of the coalition airstrikes; 225 of them were citizens, and 3178 others were Islamic State terrorists, according to the Syrian human rights organization.

Blame America? No, Blame Neocons!

Is the current refugee crisis gripping the European Union “all America’s fault”? That is how my critique of U.S. foreign policy was characterized in a recent interview on the Fox Business Channel. I do not blame the host for making this claim, but I think it is important to clarify the point.

It has become common to discount any criticism of U.S. foreign policy as “blaming America first.” It is a convenient way of avoiding a real discussion. If aggressive U.S. policy in the Middle East — for example in Iraq — results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it “blaming America” to point out that blowback — like we saw on 9/11 — can be the result of unwise U.S. foreign policy actions like stationing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia?

In the Fox interview, I pointed out that the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad U.S. foreign policy actions. The U.S. government decides on regime change for a particular country — in this case, Syria — destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the U.S. government that makes such foolish policies?

Accusing those who criticize U.S. foreign policy of “blaming America” is pretty selective, however. Such accusations are never leveled at those who criticize a U.S. pullback. For example, most neocons argue that the current crisis in Iraq is all Obama’s fault for pulling U.S. troops out of the country. Are they “blaming America first” for the mess? No one ever says that. Just like they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the U.S. demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors, and the Iraqi government refused.

Iraq was not a stable country when the U.S. withdrew its troops anyway. As soon as the U.S. stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the U.S. attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran, and the Sunnis could not live with that! It was not the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that created the current instability, but the invasion. The same is true with U.S. regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before U.S. support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? Is pointing out this consequence of bad U.S. policy also blaming America first?

Last year, I was asked by another Fox program whether I was not “blaming America” when I criticized the increasingly confrontational U.S. stand toward Russia. Here’s how I put it then:

“I don’t blame America. I am America, you are America. I don’t blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion — that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.”

In short, I don’t blame America; I blame neocons.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

US Intelligence WRONG-ISIS Is Winning The War In Syria and Iraq Experts Say

The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon’s inspector general received documents that prove senior military officers altered the conclusions of intelligence reports on the war against the Islamic State. The documents were handed over by a group of intelligence analysts.

“The Pentagon’s inspector general, who is examining the claims, is focusing on senior intelligence officials who supervise dozens of military and civilian analysts at the United States Central Command, or CENTCOM, which oversees American military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria,” the paper reported.

The intelligence analysts who investigated the reports say that their superiors in CENTCOM altered conclusions on a number of topics, among them the effects of the air campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. This was done in order to present a more positive picture of the war effort against the Islamic State to the Obama administration, Congress and other intelligence agencies.

This was the second time in one week that a media outlet reported that U.S. intelligence reports on ISIS have been inappropriately altered by high-ranking officials in the U.S. Central Command in the Middle East.

Last week, The Daily Beast reported for the first time that a group of 50 intelligence analysts had complained that intelligence on Islamic State was incorrect.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official told The Daily Beast.

The news about the manipulations of intelligence on ISIS comes two days after the special U.S. envoy to the global Coalition fighting the Islamic State. General John Allen told reporters, “remarkable progress” has been made in the war against the self-proclaimed Caliphate over the last year.

“In the intervening months, we’ve seen remarkable progress in many respects. We’ve seen the emergence of a capable leader and partner in Baghdad in Haider al-Abadi. Between his national program, his outreach to the Sunnis, his plan for al-Anbar, his close relationship with His Eminence, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, we find in him a hope for a political future in Iraq that we couldn’t have seen under other leadership, and we haven’t seen before, without a political platform, without a political resolution of this conflict, no matter what we do militarily, we will not solve this crisis overall,” Allen told ABC News.

Apparently, Allen read CENTCOM’s altered intelligence reports because of statements made by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian. Le Drain’s statements on France Inter radio painted a completely different picture. Le Drian reported today that the Islamic State made significant gains in the battle field in Syria over the last year and now threatens to take over Syria’s once most populated city Aleppo that has largely been reduced to rubble in the four years of fighting.

Le Drian explained why France has now joined the air campaign against ISIS.

“What is certain is that things have changed drastically. For several months Daesh (Islamic State) has considerably extended its presence on Syrian territory. It’s true in Aleppo, but also on the Homs-Damascus line. Today Daesh has progressed in a way that it is threatening the Syrian resistance in Aleppo region, but also Lebanon if it manages to break through the Damascus-Homs axis,” Le Drian told France Inter radio.

It could be argued that General John Allen was only talking about the war against the Islamic State in Iraq, and Le Drian about the situation in Syria, but counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says that the United States is losing the war against the Islamic State in Iraq too.

Kilcullen, who worked as a special adviser under David Petraeus during the surge in Iraq, wrote the following in a blog post for the National Interest:

“My last post examined Islamic State as a global terrorist entity—a complex and constantly evolving threat. This two-part post focuses more tightly on the unfolding war against ISIS in Iraq. Here things are much clearer: we’re losing.”

The counterinsurgency expert explained in detail how the Islamic State has been able to adjust its strategy after the coalition became active, and how it has been able to hold on in strategically important cities like Mosul and Ramadi.

Kilcullen assessed the situation:

The initial goal (of the coalition against the Islamic State) was to blunt the ISIS advance, and this succeeded. The Kurdish front stabilized into a form of trench warfare north and west of Irbil, Mosul Dam was recaptured, and Iraqi forces (a combination of demoralized regular troops and increasingly well-armed and assertive Iranian-backed militias known as the “Popular Mobilization”) retook ground around Baghdad, relieving pressure on the capital.

US leaders spoke confidently at this time of rolling back ISIS, rebuilding the Iraqi army, and then recapturing Mosul with the support of international air-power and advisers. In response, ISIS dropped back an evolutionary stage into guerrilla mode. It went back to small teams in civilian clothes, blending into the population and employing night operations and asymmetric attacks. The large formations dispersed into smaller, platoon-sized combat groups, each comprising a few vehicles and 20-40 fighters, and its leaders went underground.

After a few weeks of this, however—and after suffering a few losses—ISIS leaders realized that coalition air activity was going to be relatively easy to handle. Lacking forward ground observers, and operating under highly restrictive rules of engagement, coalition aircraft could only identify and strike a very limited number of targets. On average, from September 2014 to June 2015, the coalition was only able to mount roughly 10-14 strike sorties per day across both Iraq and Syria. (For comparison, during Operation Unified Protector in Libya the daily average was 48; in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 the average number was roughly 110; and in the Kosovo campaign of 1999 it was closer to 250.)

Kilcullen’s assessment that the U.S. led air campaign against the Islamic State is failing is shared by Russia, who today made clear that it thinks the entire campaign is pointless.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement that read: “What results have we got from sending into the region military forces of those countries, which are so fond of counting foreign aircraft overflights? Unfortunately, the achievements of the coalition in the fight against Islamic State look very modest.”

As Western Journalism reported last week, Russia has intervened in Syria and is reportedly building up a ground force that aims to save Assad’s ailing regime. The Russians already have fighter planes in Syria and shipped advanced T-90 tanks and other heavy military equipment to the country this week.

The Russian military built up in Syria caused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to travel to Moscow where he plans to warn Russian President Putin against weapon deliveries to Hezbollah.

More bad news about the U.S. war effort against the Islamic State was delivered by General Lloyd Austin, the U.S. top commander in the Middle East, who told the Senate Armed Service Committee today that only four or five U.S. trained Syrian opposition fighters are still on the battlefield in Syria.

The original aim of the program was to form a force of 5,000 fighters. In July, the first 54 members of the force were brought into Syria from Turkey. They were immediately attacked by Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, who killed and captured some of the fighters while others fled.

Interventionism And Its Blowback Results

Apparently, some people don’t like it when you bring up some of the contributing factors which led to 9/11, in which the talk radio gasbags conclude that one is “blaming America” for 9/11. They are among the ignorant or just plain in denial of the U.S. government’s murderous foreign policy prior to the 2001 September 11th attacks.

There are many people out there in America who agree with those neanderthals who booed Ron Paul at that South Carolina debate in which he suggested applying the Golden Rule to U.S. foreign policy. The reason they booed is because they believe in American Exceptionalism, in which America is superior over other countries (except in education, economic freedom, Press freedom, etc.), and the U.S. government ought to have powers that other countries’ governments can’t have. The neanderthals from that debate and their fellows throughout America are very selective in what Biblical concepts to follow and which to conveniently ignore. “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you” are the basic rules of ethics and civility which the cognitively dissonant choose to ignore when it comes to foreign relations, for some reason.

For instance, in 1991 when then-President George H.W. Bush started his war of aggression against Iraq, it was not a defensive war; Iraq had not attacked the U.S. or even threatened to do so. The elder President Bush and his Sec. of Defense, Dick Cheney, authorized the U.S. military’s bombing of Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers, and imposed sanctions and no-fly zones to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure as well as preventing medical supplies, etc. from being imported into Iraq. This was the U.S. military’s sadistic way of forcing the Iraqi civilian population to use untreated water, which subsequently caused skyrocketing occurrences of diseases and hundreds of thousands of deaths by the mid-1990s.

The sanctions continued past 9/11/01, bringing the death toll up to at least a million by 2003, the year of the younger Bush’s new war of aggression, which caused hundreds of thousands of new civilian deaths, displaced millions, and resulted in the implementation of a Sharia Law theocracy, a new place for Iran-backed terror groups which didn’t exist prior to Bush’s war, and then ISIS. This ISIS organization, as I see it, is a group of young males who were born during the 1990s and 2000s sanctions crisis and have been raised in a dysfunctional culture completely distorted by the interventions, occupations, violence and sadism inflicted on those foreigners by the U.S. government and military.

As we can clearly see, such actions by the U.S. government have been impractical and have resulted in our own disadvantage, to say the least. That is why it is called “blowback.” Such actions have not been moral and ethical, but sadistic and criminal.

Another example as well is the U.S. government’s CIA ousting of the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953 and then backing the Shah’s rule and Savak terror and torture regime. As I have mentioned recently, those criminal interventions by the U.S. government led to the Islamic radicalization of that society, leading up to the 1979 hostage takings and then theocratic rule by Ayatollahs since then. In other words, such radicalization and change to theocratic rule (and Iranian support for terrorism outside of Iran) were direct results of the Washington central planning bureaucrats’ regime change acts.

Another motivation for 9/11 as stated by the terrorists and their aiders and abettors was the U.S. government’s support for Israel. Ooooh, there’s another issue that seems to be a politically incorrect issue to discuss objectively. A real hot potato. And you’re not allowed to bring up the political movement of Zionism. If you say “Zionism,” to some people therefore you’re “anti-Semitic.” Just hearing anyone say that word “triggers” their reflexive response. But I will say that the early Zionists insisted on the Land of Israel as the one and only one place to be a “safe homeland for Jews,” based solely on the Bible. The British Empire and the U.S. government and other Western governments used their military might to make way for the activists to realize their Biblically-inspired fantasies. But there already were people living there. Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims. And that territory has been completely surrounded by their fellow Muslims and Arabs who sympathize with those whose lives were ended, or whose families were run out of town or whose homes were taken away from them. Most people seemed to be so deeply influenced by the mainstream media’s constant propaganda day after day, for decades, that they have no idea what I’m talking about.

I know, many people interpret such analyses as non-sympathetic to Israel, to say the least. But a lot of people are just misinformed on the history of Israel and the origins of the ongoing conflicts there. And a lot of people are just plain mystical about Israel, and its role as a “safe homeland for Jews.” The mystical ones are not practical, nor have the governments which they have been supporting been ethical or moral in any true sense of those words. My sympathy is with those who are peaceful and respect the lives and rights of others.

“But the Israelis have been peaceful and minding their own business and they are being attacked by Arabs and Muslims,” is the usual response. Can we say they have been peaceful and minding their own business when they are living on occupied territory? I’m just trying to be realistic. If a foreign regime invaded the U.S. and removed me and others from our homes and took over the territory by force, I probably wouldn’t like that. (That’s another example of the idea of “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you,” by the way. I hope you don’t mind my bringing that up again. If you’re a neanderthal from South Carolina, you probably won’t like that, however.) In other words, what has existed there in that region has been an occupation of an artificial State created by the conquering foreign governments and their militaries; and as long as the occupation continues there, it is unrealistic to expect peace any time soon.

This piece originally appeared at Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Hillary Clinton – Presidential Material Or War Criminal?

Seventy-one Syrians were found suffocated to death in a truck near Vienna, Austria, on August 27th. The refrigerated poultry truck was found on the A4 highway not far from the airport. The deaths and thousands more like them were caused by the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy that was driven by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her chief aide, Huma Abedin.

Austria is a nation of just eight million people. That is just a little less than the population of New York City, yet this little nation has the highest per capita immigration rate of any European nation. This is quite a burden on such a small nation. Recently, heart wrenching photos have shown dead children and throngs of Syrians pushing past European borders to reach the Promised Land in Germany and elsewhere. Germany expects 800,000 this year.

The Obama Administration, despite causing the refugee crisis with its overthrow of secular governments in the Middle East, has jailed twenty Iraqi Christians who managed to escape to the United States seeking asylum. The Austrian and German governments welcomed refugees. Austria has made an effort to bring into its borders the persecuted Christians of Syria. Last year, there was an airlift of 500 Syrian Christians from Turkey to Austria.

Riots in Hungary, death off the Italian coast: Every day, there are stories of “immigrants” from North Africa and the Middle East drowning when their small, overcrowded boats sink. Recently, a photo was shown around the world of a young boy’s lifeless body being picked up where it had washed ashore on a beach in Turkey. There have been riots at the main train station in Budapest, Hungary, as refugees from Syria and Iraq demand to board trains for more wealthy European nations. There is talk even from Germany’s Chancellor Merkel that borders may have to be reestablished inside of Europe to maintain order.

Global warming is not the reason hundreds of thousands are fleeing Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Sadly, the reason for the greatest immigrant crisis since World War II is Hillary Clinton; and the emails she tried to hide are beginning to give up the details.

In March of this year, I wrote an article entitled “Hillary Clinton’s Grand Strategy for the Middle East,” which was published in numerous places including WND.COM and Western Journalism. In that lengthy article, I gave the details and sources of Hillary Clinton’s plan as Secretary of State to install the “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood into power throughout the Middle East. The idiocy of the plot undoubtedly came from her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin, a Muslim whose family was deeply involved in organizing the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslim Sisterhood in the United States.

Under the plan, the Muslim Brotherhood, with American help, would bring “moderate” Islamist rule to North Africa and the Middle East and stop Islamization by more radical elements. We all saw how moderate the Muslim Brotherhood was in the short time they ruled Egypt. The burned churches and abused women are a testament to their “moderation.”

Wiping the hard drive of the personal server Hillary Clinton used for State Department business removed the details of Huma Abedin and this idiotic Muslim Brotherhood strategy that has done so much humanitarian damage. The life lost and the destruction of thousands of years of human history by the Clinton/Abedin legacy had to be hidden. Among those emails is proof that Ambassador Stevens was acting as gun runner for Hillary Clinton when he was murdered in Libya.

Hillary Clinton wants to be the President of the United States and planned to run while Secretary of State. She destroyed the state of Libya to show how tough she would be as a world leader. Her plan was to install the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, she birthed a failed state that became the base of several well-armed Islamic terrorist organizations. One of those, a branch of the Islamic State, beheaded twenty-one Egyptian Christian workers on a beach in Libya in February of this year.

Emails linking the Benghazi deaths of American embassy personnel in 2011 and the transfer of Libyan arms for “moderate” Syrian rebels were also probably among the “personal” emails she had wiped off the server. But the evidence of her total incompetence on foreign affairs is available elsewhere. The name of the ship that was used to carry weapons from Libya’s old arsenal to Turkey bound for “moderate” Syrian rebels is known. Some of those heavy weapons may have been used to route the Iraqi Army out of Mosul.

When Hillary Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State, the Middle East was more or less stable, and fighting had been greatly reduced in Iraq. By the time Hillary Clinton left that office, five national governments had been toppled; and three of those, including Libya, became failed states. Her support of the Saudi plan to topple President Assad in Syria led to birth of the ISIL and the loss of the entire north of Iraq. As a result, Iran has been able to spread its influence into Iraq to protect Shiite interests.

Is it any wonder the Hillary server hard drive was wiped clean? If Hillary Clinton prays, which I doubt, she is probably on her knees every night asking God to wipe the hard drives of the State Department servers as well.

Another Hillary Clinton aide, the man who set up her private server to conduct government business for the State Department of the United States, has stated that he will plead the Fifth if called to testify about the server.

Bryan Pagliano, an aide to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the server system, was asked to testify about the server by the House Select Committee on Benghazi this month. His legal counsel has now told the committee that he would plead the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer any and all questions, if he were compelled to testify.

The Washington Post reported that Pagliano had worked as the IT director on Clinton’s 2008 campaign, and was then tasked by Clinton to oversee the installation of her server to handle her correspondence while Secretary of State. This was done before and after he was employed by the State Department in 2009. While doing the setup of the server system for Clinton’s State Department correspondence, he was apparently being paid by a political action committee tied to her. Lastly, Clinton admitted to paying him $5,000 herself. Who got Pagliano the IT job at the State Department? I think we can figure that out.

The transfer of weapons from Muammar Gadhafi’s captured arsenal in Libya to some Syrian “moderate” rebels (who turned out to be Islamist killers) was clearly illegal and could not be discussed using the State Department e-mail system because of the possibility of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit discovery. The fly-by-night e-mail system was clearly constructed to circumvent the law and shield Hillary Clinton from discovery of various illegal acts, the least of which were probably trading favors from the Administration for donations to the Clinton foundation.

The Clinton e-mail system, operated out of a bathroom closet in an apartment, was far less secure than that of the recently hacked Ashley Madison marital cheating site. Although American intelligence agencies (TAO) employ thousands of hackers to attack Russian and Chinese sites for information, little is spent on protecting systems in the United States. Copies of the “wiped” Clinton emails probably exist … Perhaps the best way to obtain these would be for the Congress to ask the TAO to hack Chinese or Russian intelligence agencies for them–or better yet, just ask Edward Snowden for copies.

Behind the shrouded-in-mystery relationship of Hillary Clinton and Human Abedin lies the blood of the innocent in the Middle East. That blood is on the hands of the planner, Hillary Clinton. It was her Grand Strategy for peace in the Middle East that has caused the downfall of nations, the rise of the Islamic State, mass executions and sex slavery, economic devastation for tens of millions and an unending immigration crisis in Europe. The question should not be whether Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States–but rather if she should face the International Criminal Court as a war criminal for the misery she has wrought upon the world.

William J. Murray is chairman of the Washington, DC based Religious Freedom Coalition and project director of Christmas for Refugees.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by